Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 12th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Peterhead Prison

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints he has received during the last two years about the administration and discipline in Peterhead Prison; the nature, scope and personnel of the inquiry made into each of these complaints; what evidence was submitted; what reports, conclusions and recommendations were made in each case; and what steps were taken, and by whom, to implement those recommendations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): Since 1st January, 1954, my right hon. Friend has received 117 petitions and the Visiting Committee 38 representations from prisoners in Peterhead about matters relating to administration, discipline, medical treatment and food. These were fully investigated by the Visiting Committee or by my right hon. Friend's officers, but no action, other than the introduction of a more varied diet and improved heating in the tailor's shop, has been found necessary.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Joint Under-Secretary realise that the vast number of these complaints indicates that there must be something wrong in that prison? Will he state whether the inquiries were authoritative and independent, and

whether they had regard, not only to punishments, but to reform and the making of good citizens, in accordance with the best modern ideas of penology?

Mr. Stewart: The inquiries were thoroughly carried out by the visiting committee or officers of the Department. As I have said, some improvements in social conditions, heating and food have been made, and it would be true to say that the main criticisms have come from a hard core of rather awkward gentlemen.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not a sad reflection on the administration that out of more than 100 complaints, note has been taken of only those relating to a varied diet, after there had been almost a mutiny in the prison? Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that even prisoners who have come out of this prison have given up all hope of being able to get any redress of their grievances? Is that not a dangerous state of affairs for any prison?

Mr. Stewart: It is very difficult: men who are in prison or who have been in prison almost inevitably have grievances. The hon. Member has met my right hon. Friend and talked about this matter, and if he feels that he would like another discussion, we shall be ready to meet him.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the vast number of complaints, indicate that there should be an outside independent inquiry in the interests, not only of the prisoners, but of the Governor of the prison himself?

Mr. Stewart: It is not a vast number. There have been 117 petitions over a considerable period of time. When it is remembered that there are 230 to 240 prisoners there all the time and that many of these complaints are of very trifling matters, there does not seem to be any reason for surprise.

Aberdeen Trawler Fleet

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purpose of devising a means of increasing the powers of the White Fish Authority to enable it to build or otherwise acquire fishing vessels to be operated permanently by that Authority.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I regret I am unable to add to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member on 13th December last.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Joint Under-Secretary not realise that this has become a national problem, because the high price of scrap is diminishing the fishing fleets and the scarcity of steel and its bad distribution are making it impossible—at all events difficult—for private builders to cope with the problem?

Mr. Stewart: The Authority has not asked to be given powers to build and operate trawlers. As the hon. and learned Member knows, there have been several grants for new vessels in Aberdeen and there are indications that there will be still more. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will help us to persuade local firms to make use of the possibilities open to them.

Evacuation

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of Her Majesty's Government's plans for evacuating 12 million people if he will make a statement on how far these plans will be operated in Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Of the 12 million people referred to about a million would be evacuated in Scotland. The arrangements will be discussed with the local authorities as soon as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Joint Under-Secretary give us any idea to what part of Scotland it is practicable to evacuate one million people, in view of the lack of housing in most parts of Scotland?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend cannot at this stage announce detailed plans, since the whole scheme has to be discussed with the local authorities. However, certain areas on Clydeside and in the industrial belt will obviously have to be classified as evacuation areas from which the classes covered by the scheme would be moved into other areas to the North or to the South.

Mr. Woodburn: As that will be very difficult to do when an emergency arises, would it not be more sensible to have considerable redistribution of industry and population for the good of the peace-time

population as well as of the war-time population? Would the hon. Gentleman consider advising some of these heavily populated areas to evacuate some of their industries and population to parts of the Highlands where they will be safe and healthy?

Mr. Browne: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion.

Young Person (Police Action)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what authority the police stopped the marriage in Scotland of two English people whose names have been sent to him.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In the case to which the hon. Member refers, the police did not take action for the purpose of stopping a marriage. They took to a place of safety a young person under 17 years of age whom they believed to be in need of care or protection.

Mrs. Mann: Was not that young person in Scotland for the purpose of getting married, and were not the labour exchange officials invoked to keep the couple talking until the police arrived? Will the hon. Gentleman impress on the Secretary of State that if the police can be brought in to assist in this case, and assuming that his figures are correct and that there were 133 Gretna marriages last year, there must be 532 English parents entitled to the same kind of intervention and service from the police? Is it not time that this old racket of flying away over the Border was cut out?

Mr. Stewart: I am unable to answer the last part of the supplementary question put by the hon. Lady; it does not arise on this Question. The police took this girl into safety because she was under seventeen years of age, as they were entitled to do under the Act of 1937. I should be glad to tell the hon. Lady what they did; I think they acted with commendable good sense and courtesy.

Electricity Boards (Efficiency)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Report of the Herbert Committee upon the electricity supply industry in England and Wales states that the area boards


are languid in their approach to the most efficient use of capital and manpower, and in other directions; and, in view of this indictment and the fact that similar defects and disabilities apply to the electricity supply industry in Scotland, what steps he is taking to ensure that the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board waste no further resources of capital and manpower.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Report referred to does not relate to Scotland and, in any case, I do not accept as facts the sweeping statements in the latter part of the Question.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not the reply of my hon. Friend mean he is satisfied that the Scottish electricity boards are perfect in every respect? Why does he imagine that the Scots in their administration do not suffer from such disabilities as the English unfortunately possess?

Mr. Stewart: I think it monstrous to suggest that because there are said to be certain defects in England they should also apply in Scotland.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nabarro: A thoroughly unsatisfactory answer.

Mr. Ross: A thoroughly unsatisfactory question.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the organisation and efficiency of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the terms of reference of such a committee to be generally similar to those given to the Herbert Committee on the Electricity Supply industry in England and Wales.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: Why not?

Mr. Stewart: Well, I will answer my hon. Friend. The reorganisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland took effect only on 1st April, 1955, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be reasonable to hold an inquiry so soon.

Mr. Nabarro: Cannot my hon. Friend give some advice about the form of public or Parliamentary accountability which can now be extended to these two Scottish electricity boards? Is he aware that in the 12 years since the North of Scotland Board was established there has not been a debate in this House on its Report and Accounts and that no sort of inquiry has been made by previous Governments or by the present Government into the widespread allegations of extravagance and inefficiency?

Mr. Stewart: Questions on the Parliamentary programme are not for me to answer. As to an outside inquiry, it may well be that at some future time we shall do what has been done in England, but that moment has not arrived.

Mr. Woodburn: Are not the allegations of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) extremely unfortunate in that they are based on no information or solid facts at all? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland not directly responsible for these bodies, and has he not supervision over their activities? Is it not therefore an attack upon his right hon. Friend to suggest that there is gross inefficiency in those bodies?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir J. Hutchison: Would not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that the divergent views which have already been expressed—I cannot accept the innuendoes of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—exist because we have had no debate? Will he please put to his right hon. Friend the desirability of having a debate in the near future on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Notice of Marriage (Declaration of Residence)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what inquiries and precautions are taken by his Department, before the issue of a certificate, to ensure that the twenty-one days' qualification has been observed before marriage is solemnised between runaways from England: and if he is satisfied that this qualification was observed in the case of which particulars have been sent to him.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Under statute a person giving notice to a registrar of an intended marriage must, under penalty, sign a declaration that he has his usual residence in the registrar's district or has resided there for not less than fifteen clear days immediately before giving notice. The declaration must be witnessed by two householders who must declare that they believe it to be true. The notice must then be posted outside the office of the registrar who, if no objection is made, is bound to issue a certificate after seven clear days. Registration of the marriage to which the hon. Lady has drawn my attention has not been traced.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I can give him the registration of the marriage and that the two persons concerned were actually working in London on 11th December and certainly did not fulfil the twenty-one days' qualification? There is ample proof about where they were working on 11th December.

Mr. Browne: If the hon. Lady will give me that further information, I shall be glad to look into it.

Visitors from Overseas

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 212,000 overseas visitors to Scotland last summer came by air transport and how many by sea; and, of these, how many entered via the Clyde.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the Scottish Tourist Board that from the beginning of June to the end of September, 1955, some 26,300 people from overseas entered Scotland at Prestwick Airport; 3,700 disembarked on the Clyde and 1.200 at Scottish East Coast ports; the rest arrived via other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rankin: The Question refers to overseas visitors. Is the Minister aware that in his reply he covers only about 30,000 visitors? How, then, did the remaining 180,000 overseas visitors come into Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: By train or road.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was informed last Tuesday that 75,000 of these people came from the United States. Upon what railway did

they travel when coming from the United States?

Mr. Stewart: I understand that they could have boarded a train at Kings Cross or Euston.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister to supply information which is completely false? Last Tuesday I was told that 212,000 overseas visitors came to Scotland. The number is now reduced to 30,000. Which number is correct?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should not confuse himself. The figure given in the reply shows that out of 212,000 visitors only 31,000 arrived in Scotland direct. The others came via England. It is quite clear.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member intervened in the guise of a point of order which was not a point of order at all. He is merely trying to prolong the discussion. We have not time to have a discussion on every Question.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have no time to deal further with that point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is rising to a fresh point of order, I am bound to listen to it, but it should be a true point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Is it in order for a Minister to tell us that England comes under the designation of "overseas"?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that said, and it has nothing to do with me, anyhow.

Chronic Sick and Elderly Persons (Accommodation)

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total hospital accommodation available in Glasgow for the treatment of chronic sick and old people living alone and incapable of looking after themselves.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hospital service provides 1,112 beds in Glasgow specifically for chronic sick, and many other beds are always occupied by elderly patients in need of other forms of hospital treatment. In cases of the kind the hon. Lady has in mind, admission to local authority residential accommodation may


be more appropriate, and the corporation has accommodation providing 1,511 places for this purpose.

Mrs. Cullen: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that this is a very serious problem and that at the moment more than 800 are on the waiting list? What is he prepared to do about it?

Mr. Browne: I appreciate what the hon. Lady says. We still have a long way to go. The hospital authorities and the corporation both have in hand the provision of additional beds for this purpose.

Forestry Commission (Planting Development)

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the plans of the Forestry Commission for new planting development in the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): In the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles the plantable area which is now held or shortly will be held by the Forestry Commission is nearly 9,000 acres, and it is hoped that about 4,800 acres of this will be planted or re-planted during the next three years. Negotiations are in hand for a further 1,700 acres.

Commander Donaldson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer and welcoming the additions which he has announced, may I ask if he will give me an idea of the additional employment that it will provide in the way of foresters for the area?

Mr. Macpherson: In accordance with the Report on Post-War Forest Policy, the rough figure that is still used of the amount of employment over a continuous period is one man to each 100 acres on actual forest work.

Mr. C. N. Fraser (Appointment)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what appointment he has given Mr. C. N. Fraser under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act; what salary it is intended to pay him; and what are his qualifications for the position.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Mr. C. N. Fraser holds no appointment and receives no salary under the Private Legislation

Procedure (Scotland) Act; but he has been designated to succeed the present senior counsel under that Act on his retiral in 1958. Mr. Fraser is an advocate of twenty-five years' standing and has been President of the Scottish Pensions Appeal Tribunal for the past ten years.

Mr. Hoy: My Question is not a reflection on Mr. Fraser. Is the Joint Under-Secertary not aware that this designated appointment has been received with disgust by the profession in Scotland and is regarded as a piece of patronage by the Lord Advocate's Department? Will he reconsider the decision with a view to giving fair play to the learned junior counsel who has so diligently served in this office for the past seventeen years?

Mr. Stewart: There is no evidence whatever that this has been received with disgust. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, Yes."] The procedure we have followed is entirely in accordance with custom. My right hon. Friend regarded Mr. Fraser as the best man for the job, and that is a perfectly good criterion.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Fraser has no experience in this office and very little experience at the Bar in general? What reason has he, with a reputation of that kind, for receiving this appointment?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member saw my right hon. Friend, as he knows, and discussed the matter, and he has received a letter from my right hon. Friend. He should be assured that in this matter my right lion. Friend has done everything that is proper and in accordance with custom.

Mr. Woodburn: The Joint Under-Secretary said that there was no evidence of disquiet. Is he aware that a number of representations have been made by the Bar in Scotland because they feel that a great injustice is being done in this matter and that personal representations have been made to my hon. Friend for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and others on this side of the House? There can be no doubt that there is a great deal of feeling at the Scottish Bar about this appointment.

Mr. Stewart: I can only repeat that we have no evidence of any such state of affairs.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs and of the unsatisfactory answer which I have received from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Rural Electricity Schemes

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new major rural electricity schemes will be commenced in the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles during the next twelve months.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that they hope during the next twelve months to start schemes under which 101 farms and 536 other premises will be connected in the counties referred to.

Commander Donaldson: While once more thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask whether any plan is envisaged to extend electricity to the Ettrick and Yarrow Valleys?

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot answer the detailed question. I shall be very glad to supply the information if my hon. and gallant Friend will see me.

Electricity (Capital Investment Programme)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the installed capacity of electric power and/or output of electricity will be affected during the period 1956 to 1960 by the reduction in the capital investment programme 1956–57 of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; and how far such reduction is to be met by greater efficiency on the part of the Board.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The effect of the reduction in the capital investment programme for 1956 will be to postpone the commissioning at various dates between 1956 and 1959 of plant with a total installed capacity of 11,000 kilowatts and an average annual output of 50 million units.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not that reply illustrate the tremendous extravagance of this board? Does my hon. Friend realise that the tiny amount of electricity referred to accounts for an economy of several

million pounds a year? On such grounds, why will he not accede to my request that there should be a full-scale independent inquiry into this squandermania in the Far North?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) talked for about forty-five minutes on the Scottish Standing Committee to try to explain his point and that he has not explained it yet?

Electricity Generating Schemes (Postponement)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds, and with what financial effect, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's two small generating schemes in the islands of Lewis and Harris have been selected for indefinite postponement, in view of the possibilities of greater economies, with less public hardship, among the Board's other activities.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: These two schemes, on which work had not begun but on which the Board expected to spend £100,000 in 1956, have been postponed (along with others) to reduce capital expenditure. There will be no immediate effect on electricity supplies in Lewis and Harris, which will continue to be supplied by diesel plant; and the position will be reviewed at the end of this year.

Mr. MacMillan: Why was it necessary to cut out the two small schemes in this area when two new schemes are being started in Roxburgh and the other places just mentioned in the previous Question? The local diesel supply is much more expensive. Why has that contradiction in the activities of the Board been allowed? Secondly, is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that diesel supplies have to be brought for forty or sixty miles from Stornoway? Does he regard that as economical?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; a diesel supply is more expensive. It is the intention of the Board to supply hydro-electric power, but there had to be some postponement in order to meet the wishes of the Government to curtail capital expenditure. The Roxburgh scheme is quite different, and is a distribution measure.

Sir G. Lloyd: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that a few hon. Members and many people in Scotland would not disagree with the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's Question, namely, that there is a very considerably greater scope for economy by the Board than it has at present exercised?

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear. Just what I have been saying for years.

Herring Industry Board

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Herring Industry Board intends to develop herring processing in the Uist and Barra areas of the Hebrides.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Herring Industry Board does not consider that a processing plant in the Uist or Barra areas could be economic.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Herring Industry Board has already a plant in the Stornoway area, and that it might very well be glad of supplies to feed it from the Uist and Barra areas—and would have been glad of them in the last few years? Is it the policy of the Board, as has happened in Shetland, to wait until the Russians come to exploit the local herring fishing industry?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member knows as well as I do, we have made great developments in Stornoway and are proposing to undertake further developments in order to make it a great herring port. In those circumstances, I do not think he has reasonable grounds for complaint.

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of order. I wish to give notice that because of the recurrently unsatisfactory replies which I have been getting for about ten years now, I shall raise this at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the continued operations of the Soviet herring fleets off the coast of Shetland he will consult with the Herring Industry Board, with a view to it taking steps to revive the Shetland winter herring fishing.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Board informs me that in recent years it has

considered the possibility of reviving the Shetland winter herring fishing but the response from the fishermen and the difficulty of finding a profitable market for the catch did not encourage it to pursue its inquiries. It would, however, be glad to consider any specific proposals.

Mr. Grimond: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary for that Answer, may I ask him if he will consider the profitable market that appears to exist in Russia, and will he not open negotiations with the Russians to see if it might not be cheaper from their point of view if we caught the herrings and traded them with the Russians? Or, if the Russians insist on catching the herring themselves, why should they not use the excellent shore facilities that exist in Shetland?

Mr. Stewart: The Board is in touch, I understand, with the Russians, but the real trouble, I am told, is that the Board could not get the local fishermen to take up this fishing again which, pre-First World War, was very profitable.

Mr. G. R. Howard: In view of recent happenings in Norway, can the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland say that he is satisfied that there has been no infringement of territorial waters on the part of these fishermen? If there have been, are there enough fishery protection vessels to deal with that?

Mr. Stewart: I should require to have notice of that Question.

Fire Services (Select Committee's Report)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken in Scotland in respect of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates Report on the Fire Services 1953–54.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the recommendation applying exclusively to Scotland, namely, that recruits should serve for a preliminary period with their brigade before going to the training school. In practice they normally do; and after consulting all the interests concerned my right hon. Friend decided that no special action on his part was necessary.

Mr. Ross: I think that I have had a very limited reply to my Question, because surely Scotland is equally covered by the suggestion that there should have been reviews of standards of cover. Can we have any information about that?

Mr. Stewart: We did not know quite to what question the hon. Member referred, in that that particular recommendation concerned both the English and Scottish Departments. It is now being considered. The Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England, Wales and Scotland have appointed a joint committee to deal with standards of fire cover.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that in any such review that takes place there will be no reduction of standards of cover in the rural areas, in view of the changes that have taken place in agriculture during the past ten or twelve years?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly hope not.

County of Zetland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why Shetland is called Zetland in official documents.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The official title of the county was carefully considered in 1931 when in accordance with the wishes of the county council, it was decided to recognise and use the form "Zetland." Statutory authority for this form is now contained in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Mr. Grimond: I am disposing of the rumour that it was due originally to bad hand-writing in the Scottish Office. It is all very confusing. There is the excellent Shetland wool and there are Shetland ponies, but Zetland County Council, and, as for the hon. Member for the constituency, I may say that he is in some doubt as to what his title is.

Marginal Agricultural Production Schemes

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what change is proposed in the policy of the Government as regards marginal subsidies and other measures designed to assist the poorer and more remote farms.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to marginal agricultural production schemes. The

assistance given under the present schemes is under consideration but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Grimond: While it is under consideration, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is great need for capital assistance to these poorer farms, and that there is considerable anxiety in my constituency at the moment owing to the tendency which is believed there to exist for the Scottish Office to cut down on these grants.

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, that will be borne in mind. There is no foundation at all for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mining Areas (Community Centres)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he includes grant assisted expenditure on community centres in mining areas as expenditure by local authorities which should now be delayed.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Local authorities were informed on 17th February that new loans or grants would, for the time being, be sanctioned only in cases of special urgency. Any proposal by a local authority to incur expenditure on community centres will be judged by this criterion.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that many of these new mining villages are isolated and badly need special community centres; and will he not put them in the category of urgency?

Mr. Browne: I cannot prejudge the issue. Each case will be considered on its merits within the context of my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Old People (Rents)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has considered the evidence submitted to him by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, that many old people are living below bare subsistence level owing to inability to get houses at small rents; and whether he will investigate the problem;
(2) whether he will, through the Scottish Special Housing Association or otherwise, take steps for the provision of


suitable and reasonably rented small houses so as to enable old people to retain a larger proportion of their income for food.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Local authorities are encouraged to provide small houses for old people and have built a substantial number for this purpose since the war. It is for the local authority to fix reasonable rents, and they have power to grant rent rebates where necessary. I have no detailed evidence of the financial difficulties of old people such as are referred to, but if the right hon. Gentleman gives me information about any particular cases, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has seen the report of the welfare officers who met at Stirling and who, I take it, were representative of the local authorities in Scotland? One of the complaints in the report was that because they cannot get suitable houses old people are compelled to occupy much bigger and more expensive houses than they can afford, and that therefore they have not enough money left to buy food. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends take that into account and ask the local authorities to look into the question to see whether anything can be done?

Mr. Browne: I am most sympathetic with the problems of old people, and I appreciate that we still have a long way to go in the provision of accommodation Concerning rents, those old people who are worst off are able to draw their entire rent, whether high or low, from National Assistance, and there are still far too many old people who ought to do this but, as we all know, do not do so.

Mr. Woodburn: When consulting the local authorities on 20th April and discussing subsidies, will the Secretary of State make it clear that he does not propose to withdraw the subsidy for this type of house?

Mr. Browne: That matter will be taken into consideration.

Subsidies and Policy

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends meeting the local authorities to discuss housing subsidies and future housing policy.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend has invited the local authority associations to meet him for this purpose on Friday, 20th April.

Mr. Hoy: May we take it that the very high interest rates at present being charged to local authorities for house building purposes will be discussed at this meeting? Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the special needs of Scotland in regard to housing, and not follow the example which we have had south of the Border?

Mr. Browne: The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

Glasgow (Land, Summerston)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Glasgow Corporation regarding the acquisition of 500 acres of ground in the Summerston area for the purpose of building 5,000 houses and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Glasgow Corporation has recently reported its desire to build approximately 5,000 houses on land at Summerston and its failure to get clearance from the agricultural executive committee and the National Coal Board. My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made into the objections raised and will write to the corporation as soon as possible.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Member aware that the corporation has sought to acquire this ground upon the recommendation of his right hon. Friend? Will he therefore look favourably upon Glasgow Corporation, and try to overcome the artificial objections of the National Coal Board and the agricultural executive committee?

Mr. Browne: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is aware of the importance and urgency of this matter, and will do his best to find the right solution.

Cumbernauld New Town

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will, in order to attract industry to Cumbernauld New Town, provide factory accommodation at the same rentals as those operating in Scottish Industrial Estate factories.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The development corporation, which is responsible for providing for industry within the new town, is required by the New Towns Act to obtain a reasonable return on its capital outlays; it has no power to subsidise factory building or factory rents.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Scottish Office or his right hon. Friend gives some guidance and direction, and applies the principle of the Distribution of Industry Act and the New Towns Act, we shall not be able to attract new industry to Cumbernauld?

Mr. Browne: As things are at present, I have every reason to believe that Cumbernauld will prove attractive to industry, and that industry will pay economic rents.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that those Glasgow firms who go out to the industrial estates get factory accommodation at the rent of 1s. 3d. per square foot, whereas, if they have to pay an economic rent to a development corporation, they cannot possibly obtain accommodation at less than 4s. a square foot?

Mr. Browne: Future policy about the extent to which subsidised rented factories—for example, those in the Scottish Industrial Estates, such as Hillington—should be provided in Development Areas, is under consideration by the Board of Trade in the light of a report by the Select Committee on Estimates. which suggested, not that unsubsidised rents would be too high, but that rents of factories in Scottish Industrial Estates are a good deal too low.

Mr. McInnes: Is not the hon. Member aware that what he has now said means, in effect, that he will sabotage Cumbernauld before it is started? It is criminal to suggest that future policy is under consideration when he has already given authority to proceed with this new town.

Ex-Service Men

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now issue a circular letter to local authorities on houses for ex-Regular troops, similar to the one issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 8th March, 1955.

Mr. J. N. Browne: No, Sir. Two circulars have already been issued to local authorities on this subject, and my right hon. Friend's Department has a special arrangement with Scottish Command to take up with the local authorities concerned any individual case of difficulty.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not revealed in a recent case which I brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the well-run Royal Burgh of Thurso has no idea at all of the special rights of Regular ex-Service men? Is he also aware that I am wholly convinced that the three burghs in my constituency know nothing about this matter? Why is he persistently asking the local authorities to read a chapter of a booklet on housing needs, plus a circular sent out in 1950, plus another circular sent out in 1953, and an Answer to a Parliamentary Question? Is that not wholly unreasonable when, in England, a short snappy circular has been issued?

Mr. Browne: Inquiries which the Department made in 1954 confirmed that the great majority of local authorities in Scotland were giving special consideration to ex-Service men, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's statement will have further drawn the matter to the attention of his own local authority.

Hillhead Quarry, Caithness (Rehousing)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will use his powers under Section 48 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, to direct the Burgh of Wick and Caithness County Council to prepare and submit to him forthwith proposals for the rehousing of the inhabitants of Hillhead Quarry, Caithness.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The Town Council of Wick, in whose area the quarry is situated, is making good progress with its housing programme, and my right hon. Friend would not feel justified in taking such action as my hon. Friend suggests. He is, however, in touch with the council about the rehousing of the families in question and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that there are six families living in huts 8 ft. by 4 ft., that four of the fathers are


ex-Service men—one a Regular ex-Service man—and that a deputation which went there found them living in conditions of squalor and great distress! Will my hon. Friend not see his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and have succour brought to those families immediately?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has arranged for a general inspector to visit Wick as soon as possible and to report, and I think that my hon. Friend will wish to await that report.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Jordanhill Training College

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement the promise made by his Department to the students at Jordanhill Training College in 1951–52, to limit the period of training to two terms for certain students.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The concession of a reduced course of training for ex-Service men was still in force when the students concerned entered the Special Recruitment Scheme in 1951 and 1952. The form originally sent to them by the National Committee for the Training of Teachers, therefore, specified the grant they would receive for a university course and for a training course of two terms. The National Committee ended the concession from 1953–54 in order to restore normal training standards. It was made clear to the students concerned before they entered the training college in 1955 that they would be required to complete a full course, and they all accepted this without protest. I can see no justification for exempting them from this requirement.

Mr. Timmons: Has not the hon. Gentleman given thought to the question of a contract? I have here a copy of a contract. Has the Minister taken legal advice about this contract? It is not the time to do so after these people have signed. Is not 1955 rather late in the day for the officers of his Department to change the terms of a contract which these people entered into in 1951–52.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. As I explained to him when he was good enough to see

me the other day, there is no contract here at all.

Miss Herbison: Is not the Minister aware that these young men were attracted to the university by grants which meant that they could be teachers only, and that when they were attracted to take this course they were informed that they would have only two sessions to do'? Whether that is technically a contract or not is a matter of opinion, but does not he agree that, because of this change in circumstances, there has indeed been a breach of faith with these people?

Mr. Stewart: No, with respect. If the hon. Lady would be kind enough to look at the papers which I will gladly present to her, she will see that throughout the years a change was made and the men ought to have noticed it. I made all that plain to the hon. Member.

Mr. Timmons: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Technical Education

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the proposed £10 million building programme for the central institutions and local technical colleges mentioned in Command Paper No. 9703, Technical Education, it is expected to start within the next two years.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I hope that about £3 million will be started, but much depends on the speed with which sites are acquired and plans prepared by the local authorities and central institutions concerned.

Mr. MacPherson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this statement, together with the statement repeated twice in the White Paper, that building in Scotland will be started in five years, compares very badly, from the point of view of immediacy and urgency, with the English statement, namely, that a five-year programme of development will be put in hand immediately?

Mr. Stewart: I was trying to be cautious about this matter. I hope that the figure of £3 million will be exceeded, but we feel tolerably sure that at least a programme involving that expenditure will be started within the period mentioned.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that grave fears exist in Scotland in connection with this programme, when it is compared with the 40 per cent. delay in the school buildings which were supposed to be started in Scotland in 1955? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any guarantee that there will be no delays in this £3 million worth of building for technical education?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady knows that I cannot guarantee that kind of thing. I can only tell her that the information in our possession leads us confidently to believe that this will be done.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of student places in scientific and technical subjects at present available in the central institutions; and to what number this total will be raised by the new building programme.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Central (Technical) Institutions are estimated to have about 3,200 places for day students. Extensions at present under construction and further extensions envisaged will provide about 1,500 additional places.

Mr. MacPherson: To what extent does the hon. Member calculate that that provision will go any distance at all, beyond meeting the increase in student numbers due to the bulge in population? Is it not the case that that is roughly the amount which would be needed to meet that bulge, and that there will be no proportionate increase in the number of places available for technical students?

Mr. Stewart: I would not quarrel too much with the hon. Member in that statement. If we can get more we shall. What we have said is that that is our minimum object. We should like local authorities to do more.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional teachers will be required to implement the recently-announced programme for technical education; and how he proposes to recruit these teachers.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: When the proposed extended facilities for technical education are fully in operation, it is estimated that a further 500 to 600 full-time teachers will be required. It is hoped that these teachers will be recruited

from among the present large number of part-time further education teachers, from industry, and from among school teachers.

Mr. Ross: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that this is one of the parts of the White Paper with reference to Scotland where there is an obvious gap? We have been given little or no information about the supply of teachers. Will he take an early opportunity to expand his statement?

Mr. Stewart: I should like very much to have such an opportunity.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent buildings for the purposes of technical education form part of the present arrears of school building in Scotland.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: All the major projects for technical education which were expected to start in 1955–56 have done so.

School Building Programme

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the school building programme in Ayrshire is in arrears.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Two major projects estimated to cost £98,000, which were included in the building programme submitted by the education authority a year ago for starting during the present financial year, now appear unlikely to start in that period.

Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what those projects are, and when they will start?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. They are, first, a new primary school of which the hon. Gentleman knows, and secondly an extension of Prestwick High School; the first has been held up by the Dean of Guild Court decision and the second because of delay by the architects. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have appointed a working party from the Department and the local authority to speed up all this effort. I cannot give the time, but we should like it to be as fast as possible.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the school building programme for non-technical purposes will now be delayed as


the result of the decisions to permit no increase in capital expenditure programmes for education and to give priority to the programme for technical education.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the hon. Member will see from the circular, of which I am sending him a copy, there have been no such decisions and it is not intended to postpone any essential school projects. Before deciding to what extent it will be necessary to postpone less essential projects in the next six months we shall have to see what is the total volume of work that education authorities will be ready to start in that period.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Royal Parks (Litter)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Works how much litter was left in the Royal Parks during 1955; the cost of its removal; and the proportion thereof placed in litter baskets, together with such details as to the amounts left in individual parks on Bank Holidays, or other specific dates, as is convenient.

The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I estimate that about

LITTER LEFT IN THE ROYAL PARKS AT BANK HOLIDAY WEEKENDS IN 1955


—
Easter
Whitsun
August


Baskets
Ground
Baskets
Ground
Baskets
Ground



cwt.
cwt.
cwt.
cwt.
cwt.
cwt.


Hyde Park
…
…
…
20
5
38
20
61
21


Kensington Gardens
…
…
…
4
2
10
13
16
7


St. James's and The Green Parks
…
14
3
15
4
24
6


Greenwich Park
…
…
…
3
2
6
5
7
5


Regent's Park
…
…
…
45
41
33
29
66
30


Richmond Park
…
…
…
8
6
4
7
8
7


Hampton Court
…
…
…
19
8
12
16
14
8


Bushy Park
…
…
…
2
1
6
6
4
5


Total in cwts.
…
…
…
115
68
124
100
200
89



183
224
289

Tyres and Inner Tubes

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Works how many tyres and inner tubes have been taken over by his Department from the Ministry of Supply surplus stocks since 1st January, 1954; and how

370 tons of litter were left in the Royal Parks during 1955, of which about two-thirds were placed in litter baskets. The cost of removal was about £10,000. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the amounts left in individual parks on certain dates.

Mr. Hill: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for promising to circulate the details, may I ask what steps he proposes to take to reduce the considerable proportion of litter still left upon the ground in the Royal Parks, despite the provision of numerous litter baskets?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: There has, of course, been publicity and an instructional campaign, but I think it would lose effect if we had that all the time. I may say that in the next financial year there will be 200 more baskets provided in Hyde Park, and certainly the park keepers will watch the situation and warn people who are seen throwing litter about.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of the 350 tons was empty bottles?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I should require to have notice of that question.

Following are the details:

many tyres and inner tubes have been ordered by his Department from other sources in the same period.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Since 1st January, 1954, 2,953 tyres and 1,362 tubes have been obtained by my Department


from the Ministry of Supply, which has running contracts on behalf of all Departments with the suppliers. I understand that some of these tyres and tubes were from surplus stocks. One hundred and sixty-eight tyres and 24 tubes of special types not in general use were obtained directly from the trade by my Department.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that the Answer that he has just given is necessary as part of a jigsaw puzzle which, when completed, will reveal an astonishing waste of public money?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman regards the Answer as very satisfactory.

Mr. Dodds: It helps me considerably.

Cement (Price)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Works what his Department now pays for one ton of cement; and the cost to his Department in February, 1939.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: In London now 95s. and in 1939 38s. 11d.

Mr. Hynd: In view of that big increase in price during that period, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it exposes in a new light the boasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the cement trade not increasing, the price still further?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: If one takes 100 as the base figure, in the case of all building materials prices are over three times what they were in 1939, of bricks three times, and of cement only two and a half times.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this increase is considerably less than the increase in the price of coal between those two dates?

Starlings, London

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Works what success his Department is having with the experimental use of various devices to prevent starlings from roosting on public buildings and monuments in Trafalgar Square, and other places in London, where they cause nuisance.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I fear the recent experiments, like earlier ones, have been unsuccessful.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend playing a lone hand against the starlings that are found in public places in central London, or has he called in aid the ingenuity of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to see if it can clear them off?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Everything is being called in aid. As my hon. Friend knows, we tried an ultra-sonic vibrator, because it was thought the birds would hear that and human beings would not, but it does not seem to work. Experiments are now being made with a low-power loud speaker which makes a low whistling noise.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say where he expects the birds to go to when they leave this particular place?

St. James's Park (Bridge)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Works whether he has any statement to make about the future of the bridge over the lake in St. James's Park.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I will, with the permission of the House, reply to this Question at the end of Questions.

Government Departments (New Office Premises)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works how much was spent on new office premises for Government Departments in London during the past year; and how much will be spent in the coming year.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: It is estimated that £197,000 will be spent in the current financial year and £615,000 in the financial year 1956–57. Of these totals the new building in Whitehall Gardens accounts for £160,000 and £530,000 respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does this not represent a tremendous increase in the forthcoming year compared with the past year; and is this to be regarded as a good example to other people to economise when this office building spree is being followed so lavishly by the present Administration?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that there is no office building spree, and that


large projects of Government building have been stopped altogether. This building had been begun; half of it has been built, and the other half is now rising from the ground, or will be in the next year.

Mr. Jay: Is not it rather extraordinary that, at a time when the Government are slowing down school building and house building, this very large office building in central London should be going forward; is not this a good case for economy, and last October did not the then Chancellor say that Government building of offices was to cease in this year?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, and the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Colonial Office and other buildings have been stopped completely. This building is half finished, and it would be most expensive and uneconomic to stop it at this stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works what further expenditure he estimates will be incurred on the building of Government offices in Whitehall Gardens.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: About £1,710,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering any slowing up of this vast expenditure; and does not this substantiate the charge that I made just now of a Government office building spree in London? When is this going to stop?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have explained that this is something which has already started. This money will not all be spent at once; only £530,000 will be spent in the next financial year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Quite enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Fish (Effect of Detergents)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in the experiments at the Stevenage research station into the reaction of fish to detergents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The Water Pollution Research Laboratory has shown that the toxic effect of synthetic detergents on fish is very small in the concentrations at present found in British rivers. Detergents tend, however, to reduce the rate at which water dissolves oxygen from the air. Research on this matter is continuing.

Mr. Dodds: From the facts that have been established, does this not show that anglers should be very worried about housewives using detergents and the effects of this on the fish?

Mr. Bevins: While my noble Friend is worried about the situation of the anglers, he is even more worried about the situation of the fish. That is why this research is going on.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISSIONABLE MATERIAL (PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S PROPOSAL)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will offer support for the recent official proposals of President Eisenhower that no future production of fissionable material shall be used to increase the stockpiles of explosive weapons.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government would be very ready to support President Eisenhower's proposal. As the President said, his proposal assumed the satisfactory operation of the air and ground inpection system.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that President Eisenhower's proposal would involve the establishment of international control over all aspects of nuclear production, should it not be extended to include atomic tests? If so, would Her Majesty's Government be prepared on that basis to support such control?

The Prime Minister: I should like to see that Question on the Order Paper. I think that this matter can be and will be very usefully discussed at the Disarmament Conference Sub-Committee which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is shortly to meet.

Later—

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK (BRIDGE)

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now reply to Question No. 40.
Yes, Sir. The iron bridge across the lake in St. James's Park, which was built in 1857, needs major repairs at a cost which may well be in the region of £10,000. For many years it has been necessary to support the bridge from below on occasions when large crowds are expected; this will still be the case even if this money is spent on the bridge.
Some years ago an anonymous testator left £20,000 for a new bridge; with accumulated interest the sum available now amounts to £23,000. The terms of the bequest do not permit this money to be used for the repair of the present bridge. The offer has to be accepted by 10th April of this year or the money goes to another purpose.
A design has been prepared for a light and simple bridge which can be built for the sum of money available.
The Royal Fine Art Commission have said that while they appreciate the economic advantages of a new bridge and the merits of this particular design, in their opinion, however, the present bridge is not without merit and has become so widely accepted as a historic feature of St. James's Park that it would be better to retain it in spite of the practical difficulties and the cost of periodic maintenance.
Judging from informal soundings I have taken, there appears to be a body of opinion in favour of proceeding with the scheme for a new bridge. A model of the proposed new bridge—it is not a final design—with photographs and drawings illustrating both it and the present bridge, has been placed in the Tea Room.
Whatever the ultimate decision, I felt it was only right to inform the House of this generous offer. While I obviously have to reach a decision fairly soon, if any hon. Members care to let me have their views personally or in writing, I should be very glad indeed.

Mr. Vane: May I ask my right hon. Friend to put the building of the new bridge in front of any office buildings

which he may have in view? Secondly, before making his final decision, will he consider a bridge of timber construction, as there are many excellent modern examples of such bridges to be found in public parks in Scandinavia?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I did not quite catch the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, but I think it was something about office buildings. This is in a different category from office buildings; if the money is accepted, it will be a present. I realise how attractive are bridges of timber construction, and I will bear the suggestion in mind, but the difficulty is that a timber bridge might need constant repair and maintenance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That might be so in comparison with a bridge similar to the model which is in the Tea Room and which would be of cement and covered with Portland stone.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that, in the opinion of many of us, the value of the existing bridge is largely sentimental and that many of us would welcome any suitable light and unobtrusive alternative of the kind suggested?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I think everybody has a sentimental feeling for the present bridge, but I hope I am not going too far in saying that if it were put up as the design of a new bridge there would be a considerable outcry.

Mr. Gaitskell: While not wishing to advise the Minister at the moment on the difficult problem which he faces, may I ask him to satisfy the curiosity of the House by telling us what will happen to the money if the bridge is not built?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I am afraid that that is not known, but I do not think it is of the same character. As I have already said, the testator is anonymous and the other possible employment for the money is anonymous too.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be tremendous con, troversy about this and that he may earn great popularity or great unpopularity? Will he tell the House what steps he has taken and what bodies or individuals he is consulting before deciding on the design of a new bridge? Is it to be left to his own sense of good taste, in which we all have great confidence?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have said that I have consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission. I have also taken the liberty of consulting hon. Members on both sides of the House who interest themselves in these matters. If I have left out my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), I am very sorry, but the model is in the Tea Room now.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very careful consideration to the desirability of putting up a bridge which would be safe on all ordinary occasions, even if there were a few extra people on it?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: That is an advantage of the new scheme.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would the Minister give an assurance that he is prepared to supplement this amount out of Exchequer funds, if that is necessary, in order to provide a better bridge?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I think that a very suitable light bridge can be provided for the sum of money offered. There have been previous occasions on which schemes for new bridges—for instance, one designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens—were abandoned largely because the proposed bridges were heavy and obstructed the view down the lake. This is a very light bridge which will not obstruct the view.

INDEX OF RETAIL PRICES

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Wing Commander BULLUS: To ask the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement on the new cost-of-living index.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will answer Question No. 81.
Yes, Sir. The Cost of Living Advisory Committee has submitted its Report, and it recommends the termination of the present Interim Index of Retail Prices and the immediate introduction of a new Index of Retail Prices. The Committee's main recommendations are:
First, the new index should show monthly changes in the level of retail

prices compared with January, 1956, taken as equal to 100.
Secondly, the weights for the new Index should be based on the pattern of expenditure revealed by the 1953–54 household expenditure inquiry. A full report on this inquiry will be published later.
Thirdly, the budgets supplied by all classes of households should be used with the exception of those from households, the head of which had a recorded gross income in 1953 of £20 a week or more; and those from households in which at least three-quarters of the total income was derived from National Insurance retirement or similar pensions and/or National Assistance paid in supplementation or instead of such pensions.
The Government accept the Committee's recommendations and the new Index will be introduced immediately. The first Index figure on the new basis will show the level of prices at 14th February compared with the level at 17th January, 1956, and will be published later this month. In order to show the movement of prices since 1947, we propose also to publish a figure linking the all-items figure of the new Index to the existing Interim Index of Retail Prices.
Copies of the Committee's Report are now available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

Wing Commander Bullus: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulating him on his work, may I ask whether this statement means that in future there will be two sets of figures published monthly in relation to the index? When all the details are available, does this mean that there will be further indices of the groups excluded from the cost-of-living index?

Mr. Macleod: Two figures will be published. That is necessary because, otherwise, it would look as if we had reduced the cost of living by over 50 points in one month. As to the excluded groups, we propose to publish the pattern of their expenditure when the full Report is available, towards the end of this year, but we do not propose to have more than one official Index of Retail Prices, because in the view of the Government that would cause confusion.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sure we all join with the Minister in congratulating the


Advisory Committee on the work it has done. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the last part of his answer to his hon. and gallant Friend on the effect of the weighting of the new index certainly means that food will play a smaller part? In that sense it will make it much less useful in computing the cost of living for retired persons, for those on National Assistance, on pensions, and so forth. If the right hon. Gentleman makes that index available to the National Assistance Board, and not to the public at large, he will be hiding from the general public something which they ought to know. Whatever has been the position it, the past about these index figures and whatever has been made worse by this Government, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question now?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. That is not the position. These two groups have always been excluded. They were excluded from the 1937–38 inquiry and from the indices that followed that inquiry. It was the view of the Socialist Government, in 1951, that this system should be followed and to have only one index published. We accepted that. It was also the view of the Socialist Government at that time that the pattern of expenditure should be made available. That is what we are going to do.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made the fair point that the expenditure patterns of the excluded groups differ substantially. Indeed, that is why they are excluded. The two patterns will be available to the National Assistance Board. It therefore follows that any recommendations the Board may make to the Government in regard to scales of assistance will be based on much more accurate information than in the past.

Mr. Brown: While the right hon.' Gentleman is right in saying that in 1951 the Board had the information, we were not arranging financial policies so that, in fact, the main weight of the attack fell on the price of food. The fact that this Government have changed that means that those people are worse off than they were then. To make the pattern available to the N.A.B. is not so valid as it was then. Ought we not now to know what the index figures, owing to the change in the cost-of-living, are, so that

we may know the position of those people who are now being so much harder hit than they were under the Labour Government?

Mr. Macleod: Without going into the politics of the matter, I may say that the right hon. Member knows perfectly well that prices have never risen so much as they did in 1951 when an earlier Report of the Advisory Committee came out. It was with that in mind—indeed, it is specifically mentioned in the White Paper—that the Advisory Committee at that time made the recommendation. If I may, I will quote a line or two from its Report:
We think there would be real danger of confusion if two or more official monthly indices were published. We are unanimous, therefore, in recommending that only one official index of retail prices should be published monthly.
We have considered the problem, as our predecessors did, and have come to precisely the same conclusion. The Index of Retail Prices is a matter of very great importance, quite apart from what we can call political arguments in this House. It plays a very big part in industrial wage negotiations. It would be most confusing to have more than one official index, but it is right that the pattern of expenditure should be made available, and that we are going to do.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Phillips Committee, which his Government set up to investigate many other problems, called attention to the fact that there was no reliable index of cost of living at that time, the index was not reliable in deciding questions of insurance and assistance? It urged that there should be one specially for that purpose. Do I gather that that has been considered by the Government and rejected?

Mr. Macleod: No, that is not the position. I have acknowledged that the pattern of expenditure of this group is markedly different from those households covered by the index, but that will become plain when the pattern of expenditure is made available towards the end of the year. We could not publish it in full, but it will be available in particular to the National Assistance Board when the Board makes recommendations to the Government.

Mr. G. Brown: Is it not a fact that people will seek to work out their own figures from the pattern if it is published? Would it not be more sensible for the Government to publish the figures? As there have been no discussions with industry about the Report—I make no complaint of that—will the right hon. Gentleman at least have some discussions with the Trades Union Congress, because there is very strong feeling on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I shall always be willing to take into account particularly the views of the House on a matter like this. The Government have considered this matter and I do not think that the decision is different from that of 1951; we have come to precisely the same view as did our predecessors. All the facts of the pattern will be available to the National Assistance Board. That, I believe, is bound to lead to a more satisfactory position than that of the past.

Mr. Wade: Arising from an earlier reply made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he has considered the effect of the introduction of a new index on wages which are based on the cost-of-living index? Could he say what will be the immediate effect on wages when the change-over takes place?

Mr. Macleod: There will be no immediate effect. It will be for industry itself to readjust wage agreements to the new figures. That is one of the main reasons why we must have two sets of figures, and why we shall have to continue them not only until the new series is established, but until all those wage agreements are revised.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest criticism of

the old index was the weighting, which became dated when food subsidies and things of that sort were altered? Will he see that if and when that sort of action takes place we can have an immediate meeting of the Advisory Committee, to study the effect of the weighting on the various items in the index?

Mr. Macleod: Obviously, this index will be more satisfactory than in the past because it will be more up-to-date and based on the pattern of expenditure in 1953–54 as against the one in 1950, which was a projection of 1937–38. As to the future, it is the intention to have a small-scale continuing inquiry which, without being anything like on the scale of the 1953–54 inquiry, will enable us to check the weighting position.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is futile for him to attempt to use the Labour Government as an alibi when the majority of trade unionists and Members now on the Opposition benches who were then on the Government benches disagreed entirely with the Front Bench of the Labour Government on the question of cost-of-living index?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may he taken after Nine o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — PAKISTAN (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is set out clearly in the Long Title, which says that it is to
Make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to Pakistan and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with Pakistan, in view of Pakistan's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth
It might, therefore, be said to be an enabling or a consequential Measure. It is, however, consequential upon a very important event, the introduction of a new constitution in Pakistan under the terms of which she will become a republic. It is the declared desire of Pakistan that as a republic she should remain a full member of the Commonwealth, and a Resolution was passed in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on 2nd March as follows:
Resolved:
That this Assembly do hereby ratify the Declaration agreed to by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the continued membership of Pakistan as a Republic in the Commonwealth of Nations as set out in the official statement issued at the conclusion of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London on 5th February. 1955.
I think that the House will remember that the Prime Ministers welcomed Pakistan's continued association and assured her of their continued friendship and good will. I am sure that today every Member of the House will re-echo that sentiment. Pakistan remains a member of the Commonwealth and the measure of our co-operation with her will remain as before.
As the House knows, Pakistan started life as a new country in 1947, and since then she has faced many grave and perplexing problems. To begin with, the two halves of the country are separated by over 1,000 miles. She had to build up at very short notice her administrative services and all the apparatus of a modern State. Such difficulties might well have daunted anyone, but from the first, under the inspiration of the founder

and architect of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, and the leadership of his close associate, the first Prime Minister, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, she faced them boldly and with confidence in her own future.
In the nine years that have passed since 1947, Pakistan has made great strides. While her economy has been strengthened by increasing industrialisation, it has not been forgotten that her prosperity and well-being largely derive from agriculture and measures to improve and expand this have been taken. We all know the qualities of her armed forces, with which this country is linked by ties of warm friendship and tradition.
In international affairs, Pakistan, as befits the largest Muslim country in the world, has been playing an increasingly responsible and effective part. She has taken her place in the Bagdad Pact and in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and is making a valuable contribution to the peace and stability of those areas and to the defence of the free world. Her spokesmen have been active in the United Nations, and she has given the full benefit of her growing influence and experience to Commonwealth councils. I think that we should congratulate her on her achievements and send her every good wish for the future. We in this country have a great affection for Pakistan and her people. We have tried to help her in many different ways during the past nine years and we shall continue to do so in every way that we can.
It is very important that our day-to-day relationship with her should be unaltered, and that the rights and privileges which Pakistan and her people enjoyed under the law of this country should be maintained. The Bill before the House provides for this, since when Pakistan ceases in law to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions many provisions on our Statute Book would otherwise cease to apply.
I should like briefly to explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) effects the main purpose of the Bill. It provides that when Pakistan becomes a republic all our existing law shall continue to apply to Pakistan and the Pakistanis, and to their goods and property, as at present, which means that they will continue to have the same rights and privileges in this country as they have today, and their


goods will enjoy the same preferential treatment.
Subsection (2) extends the provisions of the Bill to the law of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories. In the case of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, it is provided that the Bill does not extend to law that can be amended by the Legislatures either of the Federation or Southern Rhodesia. The drafting of the Bill may seem complicated at first sight, but this is necessitated by the self-governing status both of the Federation and of Southern Rhodesia.
Subsection (3) gives the Government power to make Orders in Council, subject to negative Resolution procedure, and to modify other existing Acts so far as this may be made necessary by the change of constitution in Pakistan. Such amendments would be of a consequential nature and of minor importance only. For instance, there are certain Acts the operation of which now extends and may by agreement continue to extend to Pakistan which require the assent of the Governor-General before certain action may be taken. It may, therefore, be necessary to replace the words "Governor-General" by the word "President." I commend the Bill to the House.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill. We welcome it because it is evidently a necessary consequence of the decision of Pakistan to become a republic. Without this Bill, she would not be able to stay in the Commonwealth. She desires, however, as the Under-Secretary has said, to remain in the Commonwealth and we warmly welcome that decision.
I would wholly support the well-deserved tribute which the Under-Secretary paid to the progress which has been made in Pakistan since 1947, and particularly the personal tributes which he paid to her leaders, Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan and to my old friend, Ghulam Mohammed, who was until recently the Governor-General. Perhaps I should add, too, because many of us know him well, the present Governor-General, Major-General Iskander Mirza.
The decision as to whether a country in the Commonwealth decides to be a

republic or trot is, of course, entirely for itself. It is not a matter in which we should intervene, or if I may say so, express any opinion. India, of course, is already a republic. At one time it was feared that this development might have interfered with membership within the Commonwealth, but happily that is not so. By an ingenious formula, which, I think, was thought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and, above all, by the good will and common sense displayed on all sides, we now find that there is no difficulty about containing republics within our Commonwealth.
I think that all would agree that the decision of India certainly has not in any way affected the friendly relations we have with her or her ties with the Commonwealth, and I am quite sure that the same thing can be said of Pakistan. I think that all of us would also agree that one of the most remarkable features of the last ten, fifteen or twenty years has been the way in which what was once a Colonial Empire has now become a free Commonwealth of Nations. I think we all rejoice that that is so, and on the whole the process has taken place so smoothly that we now have, precisely because all this has happened, really stronger links within the Commonwealth in reality, although the formal constitutional links may appear weaker.
We hope that in the coming years other countries which have hitherto been Colonial Territories will also join the Commonwealth as full independent members. We shall leave it to them, as we have in the case of India and Pakistan, to decide for themselves whether they be republics or whether they remain monarchies.
There are two other things which I wish to say. First, it is a matter of satisfaction to many of us that Pakistan, in working out her new Constitution and after a great deal of thought, has finally decided to follow the British model and not to adopt, which at one time, I think, was contemplated, the American pattern. I say that without any feeling of hostility towards the United States, but simply because, on this issue as to what is the best democratic constitution, I will not yield to anybody in believing that


ours is the best. We are glad that Pakistan has followed the same course.
I should like secondly, to refer to a very pleasant experience that I was fortunate enough to have when I went with the Chatham House delegation to the quinquennial Commonwealth Conference in 1954, in Lahore. I mention this partly because anybody who took part in those proceedings—my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick and the right hon. Member the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) were also present—cannot but have felt, first, that the Commonwealth was a great force for good in the world, and secondly, that perhaps the strongest tie linking together the different countries of the Commonweath was their profound belief in democracy. We have yet another indication that that enthusiasm for democracy exists when we are passing this Bill.
We who were there received from our friends in Pakistan the most generous hospitality. We found them extremely friendly and anxious to maintain every possible link with this country, and we came away very happy indeed about relations with Pakistan and the United Kingdom. I am sure that the passing of the Bill will further help to improve those relations and to strengthen them. For that reason, as well as because we want, above all, to keep Pakistan within the Commonweath, I warmly welcome the Bill and give it every support from this side of the House

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I fully appreciate that the House has a good deal of business before it today, and, therefore, I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I say a brief word on this Bill. As we all recognise, the new Constitution of Pakistan and the Bill mark a new chapter in the history of a very great people.
I had the privilege of knowing the founder of the modern State of Pakistan—as the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, a great man and a great statesman—the late Mohammed Ali Jinnah. I welcome the opportunity of joining with my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State and with the Leader of the Opposition in hoping and wishing this

great nation the very best of good fortune in the new sphere which it is entering.
On many occasions in the late 'twenties, I had discussions with the late Mr. Jinnah on the possibility of a Pakistan State. My ideas then—and, indeed, his—were not quite in line with the final form which the State took. Be that as it may, I remember on one occasion saying to Mr. Jinnah, "If this does come about, how long do you think it will take to build the new Pakistan into a strong, vigorous and homogeneous nation?" In his usual cautious way, he replied, "Well, perhaps twenty-five years, or it might well be fifty years." I am certain that everyone who has taken an interest in the future of Pakistan since the division will agree that the progress which has been made in Pakistan during these past few years towards building up a great nation has been really quite remarkable and far exceeds what my friend the late Mohammed Ali Jinnah ever envisaged.
It would be dishonest of me not to say that in some ways I regret that Pakistan has decided to become a republic. Nevertheless, one realises that, in the light of what has happened in the past, that was probably inevitable. I would not be frank with the House if I did not say that at the time when India declared herself to be a republic and it was agreed in this House that she would be allowed to remain within the Commonwealth, I had certain misgivings; but many of those misgivings have proved to be unwarranted in the light of subsequent events, and especially the events of the past few years.
In conclusion, I will say only this to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the Government. I would like to see even more help given to Pakistan in the future than we have been able to give in the past. She has faced great difficulties. She still has certain difficulties with which to contend, and I hope that everything we can do in this House will be done to help this very great country on its way to further and greater progress. For these reasons, I am very glad to have had the opportunity of joining in the tributes which have been paid from both sides of the House, and extending my warmest good wishes to this great nation for its future happiness, prosperity and progress.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I, too, welcome the Bill as an indication that Pakistan seems to have overcome many of the difficulties which have been troubling her for some few years past. Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), I still think that she has difficulties to overcome, particularly her relations between West and East Pakistan. I am sure we all wish her well and hope that she will overcome those difficulties as she has overcome the others of the last five or six years.
Unlike the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I did not have the privilege of knowing the late Mohammed Ali Jinnah, but a few years ago, in an old folder of mine, I found a visiting card, fifty years old, from the days when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, bearing the words "Mohammed Ali Jinnah." I must have met him then, among Hindu and Moslem undergraduates at Cambridge.
I went to Pakistan in 1948. Alas, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had just died and I failed to see him. Pakistan at that time was in great spiritual difficulties. She had parted with her founder, the man who had inspired her through her great trials and who had just died. She seemed almost to be a ship without a helmsman. But, as we all know, she has overcome those difficulties to a great extent, at least as far as her Constitution is concerned.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said, one difficulty was the problem of whether Pakistan should follow our Constitution or the American Constitution; but she had other constitutional difficulties because she was a Mohammedan State. One of the great troubles of Mohammedan States in meeting the modern world has been the fact that the Sheriat Law—the sacred law of Islam—as interpreted in the old-fashioned way, gives the leaders of the Mohammedan religion the right to interfere in secular law. That was the root cause of the revolution in Turkey, led by Kemal Ataturk. Of course, the Turks threw the baby out with the bath—they overthrew the whole thing and expelled religion altogether, though now other views are coming back.
The great problem before Mohammedan States in meeting the modern

world seems to me to be to keep some basis of religion and to keep the religion of Islam, which is the greatest civilising force in the Continent of Asia, but, at the same time, not permitting, as has been permitted in the past, the leaders of Islam to interfere with modern legislation and all that is meant by the modern State. The problem was whether Pakistan would succeed in doing that. I think that she has. The Constitution seems to give her the opportunity of becoming a modern State and, at the same time, remaining an Islamic State.
I am sorry, sentimentally, that Pakistan has ceased to be a Dominion, but I do not think that it matters very much. It seems to me that Dominion status appears to apply mainly to those communities which are Anglo-Saxon, or which have our cultural and religious background. It does not seem to apply in quite the same way to those which have other cultural and religious backgrounds. It is, therefore, very natural in a way that those States which have arisen out of our withdrawal from the Indian sub-continent should adopt this method of creating a republic but remaining within the Commonwealth. It seems to me a natural development which, although we may have some sentimental feelings about it, is something which we can very well accept.
We are only too glad that all that we have done for the new countries of the Indian sub-continent should be recognised by them by keeping their contact with us, in this way. I therefore support very heartily the Second Reading of this Measure.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Before we part with this Bill, we are right to look at the implications of the idea which we are acting on in saying farewell to the Kingdom, and welcome to the Republic of Pakistan. I suggest, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that the idea upon which we are acting is not simply an ingenious device, but is a concept of profound significance which has its roots in our own constitutional history, and is pregnant with beneficent possibilities for the future.
As I see it, the decision that Pakistan should remain in the Commonwealth as a republic, like a similar decision in


regard to India, has two parts to it. First, there is the country concerned which wants to have that status. Secondly, and just as important, there is the collective agreement of the Commonwealth countries that that should be recognised.
Such collective recognition, enlarging a whole corpus of constitutional convention, appears to have been given in one form or another several times already. There was the occasion when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in 1937, recognised Eire as continuing to belong. In 1947, Ceylon was recognised as a full member. That was followed by the critical decision of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in regard to India, in 1949, which has now been repeated, Is believe happily, in this last case of Pakistan.
Where such a decision is taken it appears that Commonwealth countries in fact accept, and endorse, a body of constitutional convention that has grown up already. By it Commonwealth countries do not treat or consider one another's subjects as foreign. On the contrary, they assert that they are not foreign and in most cases they specifically assert that they enjoy the status of Commonwealth citizens. Consequently, having done that, they recognise one head of the Commonwealth who might be likened, although this has never been thus described as far as I know in any constitutional document, to one holding the position of first citizen.
Again, with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe that to call this arrangement an ingenious device is quite sufficient for a profound constitutional act. For this is not something that we have either to explain away, to justify or to excuse. On the contrary, from the moment that we established a constitutional monarchy in 1688 we asserted the sovereignty of Parliament. And when other Parliaments were begotten throughout the Commonwealth they inherited the exercise of the same sovereignty so that, ultimately, sovereignty must rest in all the Commonwealth Parliaments together. So what has been called a device and a formula is simply, in the case of India to start with and in the case for Pakistan now, an extension of that principle. That is why I do not believe that we have to excuse or justify it or apologise for it or explain it. We have only to look at our own constitu-

tional history, indeed the very basis of our constitutional monarchy, to discover its origins.
If that is the case, if this is a free association of nations which exchange citizenship and acknowledge one first citizen as symbol of their free association, and if this is an association of countries which, because of that, can exchange their State secrets and consult, so, also, is it an association of States which can spring the next jump ahead in modern history. This free association of nations can help free the world from the imprisoning limitations of national sovereignty and extend beyond the present frontiers of the Commonwealth that thing which the world has not been able to achieve before or elsewhere. For here is an association of countries which, while absolutely free and sovereign, do associate together and do exchange their State secrets.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer used a pregnant phrase which has not been sufficiently noticed when, speaking in a debate on the Middle East just before Christmas, he said that
…the Commonwealth idea is extending beyond those countries who now owe it formal allegiance…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 846.]
I can only imagine that in saying that my right hon. Friend must have had in mind the implications of the idea upon which we are acting today.
That idea has been noted elsewhere. Only this morning I received from Canada extracts from a speech made by Mr. John G. Diefenbaker, the hon. Member for the City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in the Canadian Parliament who, on 10th February, speaking in Toronto, said:
The Commonwealth is in constant process of change, and stagnation may well mean disintegration. At this very moment a new nation is being born within the Commonwealth in the Conference which is taking place among the various West Indies Colonies. I believe that the growing and expanding process of the Commonwealth will continue and that in time it will come to include nations like Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Germany, as well as France, which in the darkest days of war was invited by Churchill to become a part of this great family of nations.
I. too, dream of an expanding Commonwealth which some foreign nations—likeminded, democratic and ready to exchange citizenship with us and ready to


accept one first citizen—may well be glad to join.
That is why I welcome the action taken in the case of India and Pakistan and why, in endorsing the Bill and wishing it good fortune, I contribute my welcome to the new Republic of Pakistan and in doing so take leave with respect to repeat the words which were used in a broadcast from Capetown on her twenty-first birthday by our present Sovereign. Then she invited us to pledge our loyalty to
This ancient Commonwealth of ours"—
and to undertake to make it
an even greater and grander thing, more happy and more free.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. Though apologising for detaining the House on what otherwise might be thought to be a more or less formal Motion, I should like to add a few words of my own and also ask some questions of the Minister which, I hope, he will be able to answer.
First, I welcome the Bill not only as someone who is a great supporter of the Commonwealth idea, but also because I find it exciting to see great things done so modestly by this Parliament. Before I was elected to the House I went along to what is now the Robing Room to watch the Royal Assent given to the Indian Independence Act. I know that was a controversial Measure and I do not want to stir up controversies at this moment—

Commander Agnew: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Opposition, which was at that time the Conservative Party, did not vote against that Bill, but welcomed it?

Mr. Benn: If I can in any way reduce controversy by withdrawing what I have said, I withdraw it.
I recall going there and seeing, as many other hon. Members must have done, the custom of giving the Assent in the House of Lords: the Reading Clerk reading the Royal Commission, appointing the Peers to act for the Sovereign, and then reading the list of Bills passed by both Houses. Packed away in the middle of many Bills, some dealing with small matters, some

with big, was the Indian Independence Act. Just as in the case of any other Bill, when the Clerk read it out, the Reading Clerk said "Le Roi le veult" and the Indian Empire was transformed into the new States of India and Pakistan.
I found that intensely exciting and I find it intensely exciting now to think that when such a big step is taken we convey to those who break from their closer ties into a looser association many of the ideas of Parliamentary government which we, in our own circumstances, have developed over the centuries.
Today, similarly, this simple Bill, which gives effect to the will of the people of Pakistan, excites my imagination and my interest. It excites me also because Pakistan is the only Islamic State within the British Commonwealth, and the Moslem world is immensely important in modern society. It extends right from Morocco, where independence of a sort has now been achieved by the Sultan, right out to Indonesia, and is an important element in what we come to think of as the uncommitted nations.
I always feel that the adjective "uncommitted" is slightly unrealistic, because they are committed, we like to hope, to our way of life, though not always to the details of our foreign policy. That we should have an Islamic State in the Commonwealth is, to me, of great value.
I was also interested in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) about the difficulties of combining Church and State within one organic whole and to do justice to all—the problem which we have had for many centuries since the Church of England became an Established Church. Let us hope that Pakistan will solve the problem as satisfactorily as we seem to have done.
I want to ask two or three questions of the Minister to which I should be grateful to have answers. The first is purely a technical one. Will the Declaration of a Republic in Pakistan need any amendment of the Royal Styles and Titles Act? My understanding of that Measure, which was debated two or three years ago, was that it laid down a provision for the Crown to be divided, as it were, into its component parts, with the single uniting phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" appearing in all.
If I remember rightly, however, Pakistan, in deciding for herself what title she wished to give to the Crown, decided not to have "Queen of Pakistan" as the primary title. In this country, on the other hand, the title includes "the United Kingdom of Great Britain" and in South Africa, the words "South Africa," and so on. Pakistan, however, decided that the title should be "Queen of the United Kingdom and Her Other Realms and Territories". Therefore, I imagine that no change is required.
The second point is one of greater importance to me and is of some substance. Will the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, or the Commonwealth Governments, be called upon to give their view about this change of status on the part of Pakistan? Let me make it clear that it is not necessary, in my view, that any query should arise, but I recall that at the time of the conference in April, 1949, when India took this important constitutional step, it was announced in the communiqué that the other nations of the Commonwealth had agreed to it.
In this case we have had no conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting at the time, and I wonder whether they will be asked to give their view upon this matter. I do not doubt that it will go through automatically, but in this connection I would like the Minister to tell us, if he can, exactly how individual members of the Commonwealth have to approve changes of status by other members of the Commonwealth.
This is not a purely hypothetical question, because hon. Members on both sides of the House will be called upon within the next few months to welcome a number of new members to the Commonwealth from colonial or semi-dominion status. The Gold Coast is one and Nigeria is another. Both are competing for the honour of reaching full Commonwealth status at the earliest possible moment. Similarly, the Malayan Settlement will lead, we hope, to the arrival of Malaya, and there is also the Federation of the West Indies. I would think it necessary that an authoritative statement be made at an early stage as to the current practice on this matter.
I do not tie the hon. and gallant Gentleman down now because I did not give him notice of this question, nor did I

expect that he would be able to say anything definite, but we must watch the development of these things because by them a body of precedent is being built up to guide us in the future. I would be sorry to think that there could be any power of veto in the future.
This curious technique, if applied backwards, could have altered the course of English history. For instance, if in the time of Oliver Cromwell it had been possible to be a protectorate within a Commonwealth while, at the same time, recognising Charles I as head of that Commonwealth, this might have given a greater continuity to history and would have deprived us and you, Mr. Speaker, and your distinguished predecessors, of many historic utterances which we cherish as part of our Parliamentary tradition. Be that as it may, the only person to whom it now gives great opportunities is the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who can now be a republican and a supporter of the Commonwealth at one and the same time.
My final question is not a constitutional one, but purely political or personal. I often listen to broadcasts on occasions of ceremonial importance and to debates such as this one. I regret that whenever we speak about Commonwealth development we talk rather as if the Mother Country will teach and that it is the children who will have to learn from her. My own convinced view is that we have an enormous amount to learn from the Commonwealth, and I will cite an example now, which, I hope, will not break the rules of order, because it made a deep personal impression upon me.
Curiously enough, Mr. Speaker, it relates to the former Clerk of this House, Sir Frederic Metcalfe. Like all hon. Members, I came here with a respect for the procedure of Parliament but little knowledge of it. So, on a number of occasions, I went to Sir Frederic and his colleagues at the Table to ask their advice on opportunities that might be open to me as a back bencher, and so on. From him I learned an understanding and appreciation of the functions of the Journals, Erskine May, and the rest. As a servant of this House Sir Frederic was a quiet, unassuming, essentially modest man, scholarly and true to the traditions of his office.
I met him some time after he had left that position, when he had become Speaker of the Nigerian Federal House of Representatives. I can only say that he was a changed man. Gone was the Clerk of the House we knew who walked so modestly about the Chamber. Here was a man full of energy and vigour. I asked him whether he was enjoying his new job, and he replied, "It is wonderful, far better than the House of Commons."
I am sure that Sir Frederic would not mind my telling this story and, if I am doing him justice, saying that what he felt was that when he saw Erskine May applied in a country where the conflicts were far greater than we have across the Floor of this House, and saw our machinery at work there, he was enjoying the vigour they put into their job. I always remember this, and I frequently tell the story. I only do it again here today, when we are setting the Commonwealth off on a new course, to show that, while we have great things to give to them, we are also gaining great things from them.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Like other hon. Members of this House who have taken part in this extraordinarily interesting, if short, debate, I intend to speak briefly, but, for various reasons, I, too, want to have the personal privilege of taking part in what I think is an historic debate.
I feel sure that by the mere volume of these speeches there may be conveyed to our Pakistan brethren some measure of the warmth of the welcome which this House extends to them. I am not talking about the quality of the speeches, but only about the mere volume. I say that mainly because I have always felt throughout the whole of my political life that the history of the relationship of this country to the Indian sub-continent was not the least glorious page in our history. In fact, I have always thought it the most glorious, and I find something extraordinarily moving on this occasion when I think that the whole of the Indian sub-continent has now reached adult stature, as other members of the Commonwealth have done. It is also very moving to find that, although complete freedom has been attained, there is no thought of breaking the link with this country.
None of us can speak for the dead, but I find something grateful and refreshing in the thought that all those Englishmen or Britons—subjects of this country—who gave their lives, spent their lives and employed their energies in working for the Indian sub-continent would rejoice with us today in what has happened. I hope that no one in Pakistan, when they read this debate in this sparsely attended House, will attribute a lack of interest or a lack of good will to that fact. I think they should realise that the greater the unanimity in this Chamber, the emptier are the benches.
I believe this is an historic occasion, and I agree with every word that has been said by other speakers. I am proud to have the privilege of associating myself with the welcome to the new member of the Commonwealth—the Republic of Pakistan.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I venture to intervene in this debate because I want to say a few words about the solidarity and versatility of the Commonwealth and against its partition, in whole or in part, which might easily have occurred had Pakistan taken a different course. Pakistan, happily, has taken the course of wishing to remain within the Commonwealth, and this Bill is a consequence of that decision.
I welcome the Bill, because it is one further step on the road of constitutional versatility and solidarity within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is versatile because it has within it so many different types and forms of government, but they are all characterised by the fact that they are all democratic forms of government. Milestones along that road are marked by the granting of self-government to great territories which, formerly, were Colonies within an Empire, which then became Dominions and now are realms within the Commonwealth. They could have seceded if they had wanted to do so, just as Pakistan could have seceded if it had wanted to secede. Happily, most of them remain within the Commonwealth as Pakistan is doing now.
One or two, perhaps, have seceded. To use words which have almost become hallowed by usage and time:
These nations are now equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs and…freely associated
Freely, they could secede; happily, Pakistan has not chosen to secede.
There are a few points which I should like to make in connection with the Bill. As has been wisely said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) today, it matters not what these territories call themselves. Pakistan now calls herself a Republic; India calls itself a Republic; Canada calls itself a Dominion; Australia calls itsef a Commonwealth, and South Africa calls itself a Union. The name matters not. At one time it was thought an anomaly, and, indeed, perhaps an impossibility, to have a republic within an association of States presided over by a Sovereign. Those were pedantic days, out of which we have happily grown, and now other considerations apply. I think it is right to remember, in passing, that, if we had got away from that pedantry at an earlier stage it would have saved the Empire and the Commonwealth a great deal of trouble and avoided much violence; for instance, in Canada, in South Africa and in Ireland.
The second point I wish to make is this. The Bill is beneficial in its implied antagonism to the outworn doctrine of "Divide and conquer." This we find in certain constitutional developments which gave rise to partitions, small partitions or large partitions—and it would have been a large partition if Pakistan had chosen to secede from the Commonwealth—and these partitions gave rise to disputes. Two instances are found today. One is found in Pakistan itself and the other in the present territorial division of Ulster from the rest of Ireland.
Clause 2 of the Bill stands for solidarity in the Commonwealth, and stands against that kind of partition in whole or in part. The Bill is correct, in my submission, in the implication which is to be found in Clause 2. On a short-sighted view, at an earlier stage it was thought that these partitions strengthened Britain as a central Power and as a central force in an Empire, but not so today, because we are dealing with a Commonwealth of free

nations, whose interest it is to avoid international disputes, of which partitions are the father and mother.
It is relevant to quote from yesterday's Irish Times—
It is the fault of partition that the whole of Ireland is not now in N.A.T.O.
It is relevant also to add that it might easily have been the fault of partition if Pakistan were to go out of N.A.T.O., but, happily, we are not confronted with any problem of that kind today, and this Bill is evidence of that fact.
The leading article in the Irish Times which I have just quoted goes on to ask:
Does anybody seriously think that a united Ireland ever would have severed connection with the British Commonwealth?
The answer is that a united Ireland would not
…if the Unionist minority in the North had not chosen to go their own small way instead of reinforcing the cause of liberalism in an integral Ireland.
That, naturally, brings me to my last point. This is a good Bill, but it does not go far enough. Perhaps it is expecting too much from the Bill, and perhaps it would be irrelevant to ask that it should include something which would be attractive, not only to the nations of the Commonwealth, such as Pakistan, to remain within it, but attractive to other friendly nations which are outside the Commonwealth to come into it.
This is a small Measure, but it is a Measure fruitful of great and large thoughts. Some of these large thoughts are the solidarity and versatility of the Commonwealth as it stands at present and as it may stand in the future when it is a Commonwealth even greater than it is today. I welcome the Bill.

4.41 p.m.

Commander Agnew: I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in stirring up the embers of a fire that has ceased to glow; rather for a moment do I wish to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on introducing the Bill. He may well be the last Minister of this Parliament to bring in a Bill affecting the whole sub-continent of India, and this Measure may therefore be the last of the long series of Acts which began rather more than 200 years ago, shortly after the


British first entered the Indian sub-Continent.
Today we are placing on record that Pakistan has made a choice. The Leader of the Opposition referred to that choice when he said that it was for Pakistan and herself alone to decide whether she should be a monarchy or a republic. We do not question that. Today we welcome her with especially warmhearted feeling, because we appreciate that in coming to this decision, Pakistan has decided, as is the essence of all good marriages, to accept the better and the worse. I do not forecast that there will be any worse following the action Pakistan has taken.
However, it should be placed on record that any nation which decides to accede to or to remain within the Commonwealth, accepts not only the good things, the superficial advantages that so plainly flow from that, but also, in the common interests of all members of the Commonwealth, certain inhibitions and certain forbearances in the event of a country which is a member of the Commonwealth having any dispute with another member. We ought to pay a great tribute to Pakistan for deciding solemnly and definitely, after so long pondering this question, that her great advantage lies in remaining within the Commonwealth. This is a day of happy augury for the Commonwealth of Nations of which Britain and Pakistan are equal members.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper: As one who has had a close association with Pakistan for more than thirty years, I also want to light a candle to that country in which I have had many close personal friends and in which I still have many whom I am proud to count my friends. Twenty-five years ago I was actively interested in the development of that constitution which has brought us to the present stage.
At that time the political development of the Indian sub-continent was to have been in the direction of a unified country. In the event, it has taken another road—for better or for worse we need not comment. I merely wish to say that the happy outcome of Pakistan political progress, as evidenced in the Bill, affords me great personal satisfaction. It marks a new relationship between our two countries and I have every confidence that

the old relationship of close friendship will continue. I want merely to express the warmth of my own feeling towards Pakistan and, if I may, to express the hope that the Government will play their part in cementing that friendship by such help, both financial and political, that they can give to Pakistan.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: I want to make a single point which I do not think has yet been made, and I do not apologise for detaining the House on this important occasion. If our own domestic affairs have to wait, that is all right by me. We are here finally severing the last vestiges of the administrative connection between ourselves and the Indian Continent. We are all most anxious to preserve the structure of the Commonwealth, because we believe it to be so mutually beneficient to all its members.
The ties which now remain, if one analyses them, are more in the nature of diplomatic ties than anything else and they are administered by the Commonwealth Relations Department, which is a very efficient Department, whose duties are diplomatic. I should like to see developed a new kind of tie between ourselves and other members of the Commonwealth and particularly with Pakistan. A diplomatic relationship is not enough. It is most important that there should be common trends of political thought and a great deal of common thinking between politicians in various countries of the Commonwealth, for example between those in Pakistan and those in this country.
I had an opportunity to visit Pakistan for all too short a period with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I met some Pakistani politicians. I could not but be impressed by the brilliance and vigour of many of them and also by the brilliance of some of the women interested in public life, for example, Begum Liaquat Ali Khan. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will use all the resources of his Department to foster contacts between Members of this House and members of the Pakistani Legislature.
I commend to him, although it does not need it, the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Its funds are very modest when compared


to the cost of a fighter aeroplane, but it gives value in defence and security for the Commonwealth, and in political solidarity, which bears no comparison to the amount of expenditure involved. I therefore hope that as these last administrative ties fall away, my hon. and gallant Friends' Department will endeavour to encourage the creation of new personal political associations between ourselves and the Pakistanis, and that he will give full support to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in doing that.

4.50 p.m.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I wish briefly to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers). I should like to take this occasion to send a message of greeting and sympathetic interest to those remarkable women in Pakistan who in a few years have crossed whole centuries of custom by coming forward to take their share in the government of their country and of this new Republic. I am sure the House would wish to send its good wishes to these outstanding women.

4.51 p.m.

Commander Noble: If I may have the leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two points which have been made and to thank the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the support they have given to this Bill. We have had some interesting speeches. If I may say so with respect, some speakers have perhaps strayed a little from the Bill, but I think that a great interest, affection and knowledge of Pakistan has been displayed by all hon. Members.
I would echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that the number of hon. Members in the Chamber does not always reflect the importance the Houses attaches to the Measure being discussed. I know quite well that all hon. Members of this House are today thinking of Pakistan, and that Pakistan will again be in their thoughts on 23rd March when the new Constitution takes effect. It is very nice to find in this House a subject that is not

a party matter. That was emphasised by the Leader of the Opposition when he took part in this debate, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was glad that he mentioned my old friend Ghulam Mohammed, who has been a friend of my wife and myself since before the war. We send to him our good wishes after his long period of illness.
I was asked two questions by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The hon. Gentleman asked whether the passing of the Pakistan Constitution entails any change in the Royal Titles Act. My information is that it does not in the United Kingdom. We must remember that Pakistan will continue to recognise Her Majesty The Queen as the head of the Commonwealth. From the other question asked by the hon. Member. I am not sure whether he was present in the Chamber at the beginning of my speech, because I said that the step which has now been taken was mentioned in the communique issued by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers when they met in London last year. Of course, members of the Commonwealth are consulted about, and discuss together, not only any change of the basis of membership of one of the Members, but also the accession of new Members.
Lastly, I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), that it is of the greatest importance that people should move about the Commonwealth as much as possible. We at the Commonwealth Relations Office will do anything we can to assist towards that end. All right hon. and hon. Gentlemen emphasised the value of membership of the Commonwealth. When countries achieve their independence and remain in the Commonwealth of their own good will, that is bound to strengthen the bonds which join us. It must be thought still worthwhile, not only for what we can do for each other, but for the part we can all play together to preserve peace and stability in the free world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW IN RELATION TO PAKISTAN IN VIEW OF PAKISTAN'S BECOMING A REPUBLIC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I wish to ask two questions about subsection (2). I understand that this Bill applies the law of this country, the law of the Colonies, Territories and Trust Territories, as it exists at present, to Pakistan, Pakistanis and Pakistani property in the future. I understand that, as regards this country and any countries in relation to which vie have legislative powers, as of course we have in the case of Colonies and those other places. I apprehend that it is for the reason that here we have no legislative powers in relation to the Dominions that no Dominion is mentioned in the Bill. I apprehend, therefore, that the fact that the Federal Legislature of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is mentioned in the Bill is a reaffirmation of the Preamble of its own Constitution which recognises that that Federation is not presently a Dominion. I should be most grateful if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would confirm that point.
I proceed from that to the second point. This Bill follows very closely a similar Bill which became law as the India (Consequential Provision) Act, 1949. For similar reasons that Bill mentioned, of course, Colonies generally, and the like, if I may use that phrase. For similar reasons it mentioned no Dominion and referred specially to Southern Rhodesia, because the definition is taken out of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and for the purposes of that Act, as I understand it, Southern Rhodesia was in the excepted list of the Dominions and therefore needed a special mention.
The provision then made as regards Southern Rhodesia was that the Act should apply so far only as concerns law which could not be amended by a law of the Southern Rhodesian Legislature and that provision is repeated in this subsection regarding Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the

Territories for the purpose of the Federation, I undertsand that; and I understand that it needs some extension because of the present existence of the Federation, which, of course, did not exist at the time of the 1949 Act relating to India. What I do not understand is why this Act does not extend to any law passed by the Federal Legislature at all. There are some subjects upon which the Governor has either a discretionary or an obligatory right to reserve the matter for the Royal Assent. I will not trouble the Committee with an enumeration of them, but there is a general discretionary power. There are two particular matters—differentiating Measures and certain constitutional Measures—which he is obliged to reserve for the Royal Assent.
5.0 p.m.
I take it that those are matters in regard to which the law cannot be amended merely by the Federal Legislature, since in respect of those matters the Royal Assent is also required—and the type of Royal Assent in this case is that which is required in regard to reserved powers in similar cases. What I should expect to find in this subsection, therefore, would be that the provision did not extend to any law passed by the Federal Legislature which could be amended by the Federal Legislature itself. That is to say, I would have expected it to apply to laws of the Federal Legislature which required the reserved Royal Assent—again using a slightly inaccurate phrase—in order to become effective.
I have no doubt that the point has been considered and that the learned Solicitor-General—whom I see busily taking notes—will provide me with a complete answer. I would hesitate to suggest that that answer might be that this is not customary or common law; paragraph (a) refers only to certain ordinances, unlike the two following paragraphs which refer also to common law, as it were, in Southern Rhodesia. That may be the explanation. It is possible that there is no Statute to which it would apply, and that for that reason there is no reference to it. I ask the question, however. It is a slightly complicated one, but I trust that I have been reasonably clear and not impossibly tedious.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to know whether subsection (2) is really necessary. Is a similar provision now to be applied to India? If not, we shall have an extraordinary situation in which the new Federation of Central Africa has certain powers in relation to India but not in relation to Pakistan, because the Federation is mentioned in this Bill but not in the original Act concerning India. That will be the position unless an Order in Council is issued under subsection (3). Will an Order in Council have to be issued to bring the relationship of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland with India into line with what it will be with Pakistan? Shall we have to do all this all over again when the British West Indies Federation is set up with a similar status to that of the Central African Federation—because it will go through the same stages?
If that is to be the process, we may have to have an endless succession of orders under subsection (3) to cope with similar situations which will arise in other parts of the Commonwealth as they reach the same kind of half-way stage. It seems to me that some very ingenious lawyer has thought up this point, and that if he had not thought it up nobody would have been affected. It opens up a host of doubts which would not have existed if this finicky Clause had not been put into the Bill. What difference will it make if we leave it out?

Commander Noble: I hesitate to join forces with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I think I can satisfy him that the Government are at one with him in this matter, and that the reason for these provisions is very much as he suggested. As the House knows, both Southern Rhodesia and the Federation are practically self-governing, but there are certain reserves. What we really want to do is to enable Southern Rhodesia and the Federation to legislate as much as possible on their own, and in this Clause we are covering any United Kingdom legislation with which they are not able to deal.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It would not apply to India.

Commander Noble: I was just coming to the question of India. As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) quite correctly said, the Federation was not in being at the time when

a Bill similar to this one went through the House, when India became a Republic. Without having gone into the matter very carefully, I would say that we will now most certainly see whether any Orders in Council are necessary—although I should think that this would now be a matter for the Federation and for India. I will, however, most certainly see whether Orders in Council are necessary either on this occasion or in the future, as the right hon. Gentleman said, when the Federation of the West Indies or any similar Federation in another part of the world comes into being.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If this is to be a matter between the Federation and India, could it not be left in the same state with regard to Pakistan? The moment the Measure is passed, Pakistan will be in the same position as India. It would be simpler to leave these complicated matters out of this Bill. If it works with India it would work with Pakistan on the day after the Royal Assent is given to the Bill, because Pakistan would then be in the same position as India. All this is nonsense.

Commander Noble: I cannot agree that it is all nonsense, because my legal advisers have advised me that it is necessary.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee again, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not answer either of my questions. Is the Federation and the Federal Legislature mentioned because it is not presently a Dominion? I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to assent to that.

Commander Noble: indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: I look to him to say so, because this question has caused a little apprehension on the part of my hon. Friends.
My second question is this: Why does not this Measure apply to those matters within the competence of the Federal Legislature which require the reserved Royal Assent? I should welcome an answer to that second question, from whichever distinguished Member of the Government it came.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I rise not on account of the epithet addressed to me, but in order


to try to help the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). There is no great mystery about this. I do not know whether any kind of Federal law of this variety exists at the moment—but, if it does, it seems to us that the provisions of the Bill afford the right means of dealing with the matter. If a Federal law exists which requires some special form of reserved consent, we still desire, under the Bill, that the amending initiative shall come from the Federal Legislature, and we undertake to provide the requisite special consent, whatever it may be. The pattern which we seek to arrive at is to ensure that the amending initiative comes from the Federal Legislature. That is what the wording of the provision will ensure.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If these words have the effect of ensuring that the initiative in regard to certain relations between the Federation and Pakistan come from the Federation, for that very reason such an initiative cannot come in regard to the relationship between the Federation and India. India and Pakistan are in the same legal position, and if these words are necessary to enable this process to happen in regard to Pakistan, some similar words are surely necessary to enable it to be carried out in regard to India.

The Solicitor-General: As the right hon. Member and his right hon. Friends did in 1949, in relation to India, in similar circumstances, we are adapting existing law to the new circumstances when they come into being some days hence. All that has to be done hereafter can be done as between ourselves and the Dominion, colonial, or whatever it may be, legislature.
The Bill follows precisely the 1949 Act, except for the adaptation required. We adapt the law on the date of the Bill and the future rests, as it has always done. The same thing happened in the India Act. That is why India does not, in this context, require a special enactment.

Mr. Mitchison: There is a change, and I regret the nature of it. The India (Consequential Provision) Act applied to the law of Southern Rhodesia. It said, and I am reading from it:
As concerns law which cannot be amended by a law of the legislature thereof.
That is the Southern Rhodesian Legislature. I should have preferred to see that formula repeated with regard to the Federal Legislature.
I find the reason given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the more unconvincing in that he does not seem to have appreciated that a difference has been made in the wording. In view of what was said, I find it necessary to ask that some member of the Government, instead of nodding on the Front Bench, should get up and say that the reason for the reference to the Federal Legislature is that the Federation is not presently a Dominion.

Commander Noble: I thought I made that point clear to the hon. and learned Member, both in the speech when I explained the Bill and just now. It is clear that the Federation is not yet a full Member of the Commonwealth.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.23 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This short and not wildly exciting Bill has two objects. First, it validates two issues of debenture stock made by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in 1951 and 1952 which have recently been found to be technically invalid owing to an out-of-date reference in the Corporation's Memorandum of Association.
This is a technicality, but it is important that it should be corrected as soon as possible in order to remove any doubt about the status of the particular issues which, like all the Corporation's debenture stocks, are authorised trustee securities.
The second object of the Bill is to increase the maximum amount of the loans which I am authorised to make to the Corporation for the purposes of its guarantee fund. The House is no doubt aware that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is an important source of long-term credit for the agricultural industry and that its operations are financed by the issue of debenture stocks on the market. I shall refer to the history of the Corporation only as far as is necessary to explain the purpose of the Corporation's guarantee fund, which is mentioned in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
The Corporation was established under Part I of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928. It was designed to fill what was then a gap in the commercial credit organisation by providing facilities for long-term loans on mortgages of agricultural property at relatively favourable interest rates and on terms which gave the borrower an assurance that so long as he met his repayment obligations the loan would not be called in and that the rate of interest on his loan would not be increased.
At the request of the Government of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the banks

agreed to provide what one might call the motive power for the new Corporation by contributing its initial share capital of £650,000, which was later increased to £750,000—an investment on which the shareholders have had a very meagre return to date, I am afraid.
The Government also made a contribution to the success of the Corporation's operations. The 1928 Act provided that the Minister of Agriculture should make contributions of £10,000 a year Towards the administrative expenses of the Corporation during the first ten years of its life. It also provided for advances by the Minister for the establishment of a guarantee fund. These advances were not to exceed the paid-up share capital of the Corporation, or £750,000, whichever was less, but they were to be free of interest for sixty years.
The object of the guarantee fund was not to guarantee the Corporation's debenture stock, but to provide the Corporation with strong reserves against the risk of bad debts, and with an income from interest which would enable it to make loans according to the intention of the Act on terms described as
most favourable to the borrowers.
It was clearly important for the Corporation's credit and its general financial standing to ensure that its borrowings, which furnished the funds for its mortgage loans, should not be out of proportion to its total resources. So there was a proviso dealing with this point included in Clause 3 of the Corporation's Memorandum of Association which set out the objects for which the Corporation was established.
This proviso stipulates that the amount of the debenture stock which could be issued by the Corporation should be restricted so that the amount on loan from the Minister under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, that is to say, the guarantee fund, when added to the amount of the paid-up share capital and to any amount standing to reserve, should never be less than 10 per cent. of the aggregate amount of the debenture stock issued by the Corporation and for the time being outstanding. That is to say, the total debenture stock could be up to ten times the amount of the guarantee fund, the share capital and any reserve, added together.
The point I wish to emphasise here, because it is essential to an understanding of Clause 1, is that this formula refers specifically to the amount on loan from the Minister under the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928. It is from that that the trouble stems.
In 1944, the Government decided that steps must be taken to enable agriculture to meet the prospective post-war commitment for long and medium-term loans for agricultural improvement. In order to increase the Corporation's borrowing powers the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, provided for an increase in the total advances made to the Corporation's guarantee fund from £750,000—which I have mentioned—to a total of £2,500,000. In the next few years the volume of business of the Corporation steadily increased, and issues of debenture stocks amounting to £8½ million were made between 1948 and 1950. In March, 1951, the Government of the day made a further advance to the Corporation's guarantee fund to enable it to make a further issue of debenture stocks in 1951–52.
The point which I wish to emphasise here is that until this further advance was made, the guarantee fund stood at £650,000—that is, within the limit of £750,000 originally prescribed. The further advance of £250,000 made in March, 1951, brought the total to £900,000 That was fully in accordance with the Act of 1944 and both the Corporation and the Ministry believed that it had the intended effect of increasing the Corporation's borrowing powers. I have no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) thought so too, and I think it is very natural that he should have done so.
Taking account of this further advance really provided a limit for the debenture stock issues of over £21½ million, and against that authorised amount the actual amount outstanding at that time was £18¼ million, so that there was adequate margin for the additional issue of £3¼ million which was made in September, 1951. That is what everyone thought was the situation in 1951, and again in 1952 when a further issue of debenture stocks of £5million was made after the

guarantee fund had been increased by a further £900,000.
Indeed, all concerned continued to think that everything was fully in order until about six months ago, when the Corporation was considering making a further issue of debenture stock. It was noticed only then that the formula in the Memorandum of Association which prescribed the limit of the borrowing powers referred to the guarantee fund as the amount on loan from the Minister under the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928. The Corporation immediately took legal advice and its fears were confirmed.
Because the Memorandum of Association had not been amended on this point the Corporation was only entitled to take into account in calculating the amount of its borrowing powers the original £750,000 of the guarantee fund which was authorised under the 1928 Act. On this basis it had exceeded the limits of its borrowing powers by making in 1951 and 1952 the issues of debenture stock, despite the passing of the 1944 Act and the increase in the guarantee fund made under that Act.
The House realises, I am sure, that this is a sheer technicality, and that all that happened was that the Corporation's Memorandum of Association had not been kept up to date and in line with the increase in the Corporation's financial resources. From the financial point of view the Corporation's debentures are fully covered and soundly based. The guarantee funds stands at present at £2,050,000, as a result of a further advance of £250,000 made under the 1944 Act, in March, 1953.
But for this flaw in the Memorandum of Association, the Corporation would be fully in a position today to make a further issue of nearly £8 million on the basis of its existing share capital, reserves,, and the total of the guarantee fund as it stands. But until this flaw in the Memorandum of Association is corrected, the Corporation is debarred from making, any further debenture stock issue whatever.
That is a serious matter in view of the continuing demand for loans from the Corporation, and it is also important to see that those two stock issues in 1951 and 1952 are made as legally valid as


they are financially sound. That is why the Bill is necessary, and Clause 1 corrects the situation. It removes the offending words in the Memorandum of Association,
…under the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928
and specifically validates the debenture stock issues made in 1951 and 1952.
There is a good reason why I have come to the House with the Bill, irrespective of the need to amend the Corporation's Memorandum of Association, and I should like to refer to Clause 2, which provides for an increase in the maximum amount of the Corporation's guarantee fund from £2½ million to £3¼ million. As I said earlier, the Corporation's business has steadily expanded and is continuing to do so. At present it has mortgage loans outstanding of about £27 million, and in the financial year which is shortly to end it will have issued, I think, about £3½ million or £4 million worth of new loans.
There is, therefore, need to provide for the Corporation continuing to be able to lend for several years ahead at an annual rate of about £4 million net. Increasing the maximum amount on the guarantee fund, as is proposed under the Bill, to £3¼ million will put the Corporation in a position where it will be able to make new debenture issues of £7½ million on that account, and that, when added to the scope it already has under its present powers, would mean that the Corporation would be in a position to issue a total of up to £20 million of new debenture issues. That should see the Corporation through until 1960 which will, in any case, be a convenient time to review the position.
I say that because under the 1944 Act the Government make a contribution to the Corporation to relieve it of the loss which it incurs on lending funds which it raised at a high rate of interest in 1929 and 1930, before the general fall in interest rates that took place in 1932. Those contributions have to end in 1959, and in that year also the Corporation will be able if it wishes, to repay the debenture stocks which it raised in 1929 and 1930. In any case, therefore, in 1960 we shall have to take stock of the position, and we shall then be in a better position to assess the Corporation's future needs. I

think that it is always unwise to legislate for further ahead than one can reasonably foresee, but if we cover the position until 1960 I think we shall have met all likely contingencies.
The Corporation has a record, since it was put back on its feet again, as it were, in 1944, of which it may well be proud. I trust that the House will give a speedy passage to this little Bill to enable the Corporation to continue the good work which it is doing, which is based on the sound foundations which have already been laid down.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: We readily agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the Bill is two-fold, and I think I can at the outset say that perhaps the retrospective part of the Bill is the more important part. I had something to do with the introduction into and negotiation through this House of the 1944 Act. I am not sure that I did not even venture some observations on the 1928 Act when it was introduced.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a very small Measure and we shall take no exception to it. On the assumption—and I emphasise "assumption"—that the extra £750,000 guarantee is now provided and debentures equal to ten times that amount are subscribed, it would be a useful contribution to the capital investment so urgently required in agriculture. However, I hang on to my word "assumption" and shall refer to it again later.
I said this was a useful contribution. If our farms are really to be modernised as they should be, and if the campaign for efficiency is to continue, then, even on the largest assumption one can make, that £750,000 plus £7½ million or £8¼ million would be a mere drop in the ocean compared with the sum of money required properly to modernise our many farms. I have quite recently seen estimates running into hundreds of millions, assuming the job is to be done properly and perfectly over the next five or ten years, but I doubt if land owners, owner-occupiers or tenants will think in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds of capital expenditure at this moment, while there is so little certainty in the agricultural industry. Probably that is the view


of the Government. Hence their limitation of a further advance of only £750,000, for they must in the nature of things, to make this a success as a credit institution, rely upon the average investor, or all the investors, to supply ten times the amount of money for debentures that the Government are advancing under Clause 2.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman really believes that, in existing circumstances, this extra money is likely to be obtained except at a very large rate of interest, which will make it quite impossible for the Mortgage Corporation to undertake to do exactly what the 1928 Act was designed to do, which was to provide capital to borrowers at favourable terms. Clause 2 says:
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may, for the purpose of increasing the company's guarantee fund make advances…not exceeding three million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, and on the same conditions as to repayment and as to payment of interest as the last-mentioned advances.
That means, in effect, that the provisions of the 1944 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act continue to apply, and that says:
for restricting the dividends on the share capital of the Corporation…to three and a half per cent. per annum, and for providing that the dividend for any such year shall not be cumulative so as to be payable in a later year.
If my reading of that is correct, in a year when the Government are now converting a very large loan from 2½ per cent. bonds to 4 per cent., and have recently floated a loan for £300 million at 5 per cent., nobody would advance money to the Mortgage Corporation at 3½ per cent., or indeed anything like it.
I am bound to ask the Minister this. Although there is a very big difference between the share capital owner and the debenture holder, since the Government have come to the rescue of the debenture holder on at least two occasions, in 1944 and even later, I can scarcely credit the possibility of large sums of money being made available as debentures, as is the intention of this Bill, which will enable the Mortgage Corporation to carry on with its business and at the same time provide capital on favourable terms to the would-be borrower. If this capital is not available because of the change in the money situation, then all the Corporation would have at its disposal in excess of

what it has at the moment would, of course, be the extra Treasury £¾million. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Amory: The sum of £750,000 is an addition to the guarantee fund. That guarantee fund cannot be lent by the Mortgage Corporation; it has to be invested and will provide it with an income from interest.

Mr. Williams: That was what I wanted to draw out, because the increased guarantee that the Government are now providing can be of real value only if public investors will take up the extra £7½ million that they can take up, thinking in terms of ten times the £750,000 extra guarantee. Unless the public take up large sums in terms of debentures, the Bill, apart from its retrospective element, will not be of very great value as a credit institution for the forthcoming years, even down to 1960.
I notice from the last year's balance sheet of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation that in May, 1954, it reduced its interest on loans advanced from 5 per cent. down to 4½ per cent.; but since May, 1954, the Bank Rate has popped up between four and five times, and I wonder whether the Minister could say what is the charge to borrowers at present. It would be interesting to know what the charge is, because certainly the borrower will borrow only if he feels that the rate of interest is one which is manageable and which his estate can care for. The object of the 1928 Act was to make loans "on terms most favourable to borrowers." I hope that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us exactly what is now being charged to would-be borrowers, for only when we know that can we estimate the possibilities of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation collecting sums large enough to meet the needs of agricultural improvement at this time.
As I see it, the Bill could be a small contribution to the credit needs of agriculture, and we accept it for what it might have been worth. However, as I understand the position in agriculture, I think that it will be a very poor contribution to meet the need of modernising that industry if it is to play the part it ought to be allowed to play, particularly in view of our balance of payments problem. As


I say, anything that might be done to help the industry we are ready and willing to support, but, with the best will in the world, I cannot feel that this will be a very big contribution to the credit needs of agriculture.

5.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): May I briefly reply to the right hon. Gentleman's questions? The current rate of interest charged on loans on mortgage is 5½ per cent. That has been the rate since last summer. I am told that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has been doing a considerable volume of business at that rate, and evidently the rate is not a deterrent to current borrowers.
I hope that, with that assurance, the right hon. Gentleman and the House will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection:
Any Petitions against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petition is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the prayer of his Petition, to be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents, upon his Petition provided that such Petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in Charge of the Bill to be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against such Petition.
Power to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence:
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Amory.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees)—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the memorandum of association of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for making advances under that Act to the said Corporation for the purpose of increasing its guarantee fund not exceeding in the aggregate, with the advances made to it under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, three million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums paid by the said Corporation by way of repayment of, or interest on, advances made to it under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Amory.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DENTISTS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 24.—(RESTRICTIONS ON BODIES CORPORATE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 4, at end insert:
("or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts (Northern Ireland). 1893 to 1955")

5.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendments results from an Amendment agreed during the Report stage. We agreed to make it possible for societies which had obtained registration under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1954, to carry on the business of dentistry even if they were not doing so on 21st July, 1955. This Amendment merely extends that to Northern Ireland, and the addition has been made at the request of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(USE BY UNREGISTERED PERSONS OF TITLES AND DESCRIPTIONS CONNECTED WITH DENTISTRY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, after Clause 26 insert:
A—(1) No person shall take or use the title of dentist, dental surgeon or dental practitioner, either alone or in combination with any other word, unless he is a registered dentist or a registered medical practitioner, and no person shall take or use any title or description implying that he is a registered dentist unless he is a registered dentist.
(2) A person who acts in contravention of the provisions of this section will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds.

5.45 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to protect the titles of "dentist", "dental surgeon" and "dental practitioners" from use by persons who are not registered dentists and to provide penalties for their

misuse, It has the support of the profession.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33.—(RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) The Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, shall apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the General Dental Council under this Act in like manner as if the regulations had been made by a Minister of the Crown.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This has been a Government Amendment to remedy a defect in the Bill. The Bill requires certain regulations of the General Dental Council to be made by Statutory Instrument. The Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, applies only to Statutory Instruments made by the Crown, and the object of the Amendment is to apply it to instruments made by the General Dental Council. It is a technical and drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 1, leave out from "document" to "issued" in line 2.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This ties up with the previous Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, leave out lines 48 to 50.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These words were inserted on Report. There was a discussion in the House on Report when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) suggested that these words were not necessary My right hon. Friend agreed to look into the matter. I am happy to say that, after consideration with the drafting experts, we agree with the hon. Member that the words are not necessary. The Amendment therefore deletes them.

Question put and agreed to

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS

5.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
One or two points arise from these Regulations which I ought to explain to the House. They introduce a scheme for improved pensions for police widows in return for an increase in the rate of pension contributions payable by police officers. If the House approves them, the new scheme will come into operation on 1st April of this year.
In order that there should be no misunderstanding, I should next make it clear that the scheme will not apply to existing widows or to the widows of police officers who will have retired before 1st April, 1956. Regulations to give the existing widows the increases appropriate in the light of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, which is now in Committee, will come before the House for approval in due course.
The police service was the first public service to provide a comprehensive scheme of widows' pensions, and that was as long ago as 1918. The service pensions were normally flat rate awards and, like all flat-rate pensions, these benefitted the widows of officers who died after a few years' service but were less favourable for the widows of officers with longer service.
The need for improved police service pensions has been felt for a long time, but previous attempts to reach an agreement have always broken down on the question how the additional cost should be apportioned. Lord Oaksey's Committee on Police Conditions of Service, which reported in 1949, recognised the need for improved widows' pensions but suggested that any substantial increase must depend on the willingness of the police officers to contribute to the cost.
In the light of this recommendation, a Working Party was set up to consider possible schemes, and one of the first tasks of the newly-constituted Police Council for Great Britain, which consists of representatives of serving officers and police authorities, was to consider the

Working Party Report. After very long discussions, which were fortified throughout by the determination of both sides that none of the difficulties should be solved at the expense of the widows themselves, the Council succeeded in reaching unanimous agreement—I stress that—on the details of a scheme which it then recommended to my right hon. and gallant Friend.
The draft Regulations which the House is being asked to approve have been prepared to give effect to these recommendations, and my right hon. and gallant Friend has asked me to express his pleasure that it has been possible to reach agreement on this long awaited improvement in the police pensions scheme.
I do not want to take up time by referring to the Regulations in detail, unless any hon. Member has a specific question to ask, but it might be helpful if I explained that the scheme will introduce a widow's pension related to her husband's pay and length of service and will provide her with the equivalent of one-third of her husband's pension. For the widows of officers who die with only a limited period of service, the present flat rate awards will continue as minima, with a small increase if the officer had completed ten years' service or more. Special pensions will continue to be payable at the higher rate when the husband dies as a result of an injury received in the course of his duty.
Half the cost of the new scheme will be met by the police authorities and the Exchequer and half will be met by the officers themselves. Men who enter the police service after 1st April, 1956, will be required to pay a pension contribution of 6¼ per cent. of their pay, instead of 5 per cent. as at present. Officers who are already serving on 1st April, 1956, will not be required to participate in the new scheme, unless they wish to do so; for them it will be an optional arrangement. If they enter the scheme their past service will be taken into account in calculating their widows' pensions and they will have to meet half the cost, the other half being met by the police authorities and the Exchequer.
I should add that the new scale of widows' pensions will not, of course, extend to the widows of men who are serving on 1st April, 1956, and who do


not wish to participate in the new scheme. That is axiomatic. This scheme is being introduced on the unanimous recommendation of representatives of serving officers and the police authorities. I commend the Regulations to the House in the belief that they intrduce a substantial improvement in the police pensions scheme.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The House will be grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for the explanation he has given of these very complicated Regulations. It is a year or two now since I last had occasion to participate in a debate on this very important subject, which has been coming up almost every year with new draft regulations of one kind or another; and I must say that in the interval the complications do not seem to have been reduced very much.
The difficulty the layman has in judging of the adequacy of any new pensions scheme for the police arises from the fact that we are now in a period when the police, like any other section of the community which once used to have a great advantage of the population as a whole in the security their calling offered, are now having to adjust themselves to the provision of far more general welfare to the whole population. Secondly, what seemed adequate in the way of pensions some years ago is no longer adequate as an attraction to the police service.
I think it is that above all which causes the difficulties the police service as a whole has been finding in recruiting officers; perhaps even more in retaining officers in the early years after they have been recruited. Every time that subject comes up for debate in this House there is a reference to the constable's wife. The constable's wife, particularly in the rural district, plays an extremely important part in the effectiveness of the service her husband can give. Therefore, anything relating to the provisions for wives—in this case provision for them in case they become widows—is a very important matter.
That, clearly, is an improvement on what has gone before. One notices according to figures which I have been shown that the improvement rises very steeply with length of service. I think I am right in saying that for all ranks after service of ten years the improvement

amounts only to £5 over the present flat rate. After twenty years' service the improvement varies with rank from the smallest improvement of an increase of £21 for constables to the largest improvement for £48 for chief inspectors. If we go on a further ten years, after thirty years—again varying with rank—the improvement is £92 for constables and £157 for a chief inspector.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that improvement is in return for increased contributions. Having pointed out how steeply the improvement rises in the later stages, I wish to call attention to what many have thought to be the main defect of these proposals—that in the very early stages, in the first ten years of a man's service, there is no advance on the benefit received, although he will be paying increased contributions.
If he dies before having served ten years, his widow will get no better pension than she would have under the existing Regulations, although for perhaps three, four, six or eight years her husband will have been paying the increased contribution. Constables are principally involved and after fifteen years' service these Regulations merely provide them with an additional £5 over the present flat rate. One wonders whether it might not have been possible for this quite small rise to have been offered earlier than at the end of ten years' service, or possibly even at once.
The Joint Under-Secretary referred to the contribution which officers themselves make. I believe it is correct that about three-quarters of the improvement in the benefit will be covered by contributions from serving officers and only 25 per cent. by public funds. While I am not criticising that—I only note that the present position is not startlingly generous from that point of view—I commend to the Government and the hon. Gentleman further consideration of these Regulations. I do not suppose that they consider the Regulations as final and forever any more than any other Regulations are. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the possible improvement to which I have referred.
As the hon Gentleman said, there has been agreement on the newly constituted Police Council It would be very unusual, to say the least, for this House to refuse to accept regulations agreed on that basis.


We on this side of the House regard it as a welcome early fruit of the new Police Council, which I am glad to think is giving satisfaction, as I believe, is generally agreed. It is an improvement on the statutory councils which went before. We are glad to welcome this instalment—if, perhaps, that is what it may prove to be—and hope that others making better provision for the widows of police officers will follow in due course.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: There are two points made by my right lion. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) with which I agree. One was that the pensions schemes for police officers are very complicated. The other point was that while these proposals represent some improvement they cannot really be described as generous.
There is one aspect of the police pensions schemes to which I should like to refer, which, in my judgment, certainly cannot be described as generous. I wish to refer briefly to it and although I appreciate that it may not be possible for the Joint Under-Secretary to give me any satisfactory answer this evening, I give notice that I shall seek an opportunity of raising this matter on some future occasion.
The aspect of police pensions to which I refer is that which arises when the police officer is discharged from the service as a result of injuries sustained in the execution of his duty. There is an arrangement now under which a supplementary pension is payable over and above the ill-health award when the officer is injured in the course of his duty. My submission is that this supplementary award is never generous and, towards the end of the officer's service, it decreases, is mingy, and immediately before retirement it disappears. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the ill-health award rises fairly steeply towards the end of the officer's term of service. The present arrangement is that as the retirement pension increases the amount which becomes payable out of the supplementary fund on account of the officer's disability or injury decreases. That is wrong and should be re-examined.
I will give an example of the sort of thing I have in mind. I have a constituent who served for twenty-one years in

the police and was then severely injured in the course of his duty. He was called upon to deal with some unruly and drunken American soldiers and in the course of trying to persuade them to leave a dance hall he was thrown down stone stairs, severely injured, and subsequently discharged as unfit. He received £148 18s. 11d. as an ill-health pension. Towards that, as my right hon. Friend said—and it was referred to by the Joint Under-Secretary—he has paid a contribution. He was entitled to that pension by virtue of his contribution and on the basis of his length of service.
He would have got it, anyhow. In addition to the ill-health pension, he receives out of the supplementary fund a pension on account of his disability, which amounts to £85 13s. 6d. Of that amount, however, he receives £70 4s. as industrial injuries benefit from the National Insurance Fund. Of course, he also pays a contribution to that Insurance Fund and he is entitled to that benefit as a right. So the fact is that on account of his disability, sustained in the execution of his duty, this police officer received an award of £15 19s. 6d. a year from the Police Fund.
As the industrial injuries benefit of the National Insurance Fund increased, in order to meet the increased cost of living, the award from the Police Fund decreased until the amount which he actually receives is not more than 6s. a week. This seems to me to be wholly wrong. I would have thought that the special risk which the conscientious police officer will run is something which ought to be covered by more generous compensation if it involves him in injury or accident. As things now are, the compensation, as I have said, is by no means generous—it is mingy—and towards the end of his service the compensation element practically disappears.
Let us take the case of two police officers reaching the end of their service after 24 years 6 months, both of whom are entitled on retirement at the end of the 25 years' service to a certain pension towards which they have paid contributions, and which they will be receiving as a right. If these two police officers are confronted with some emergency in the course of which some risk will be run, it is possible for them to reason that if they go into this emergency in trying to


carry out their duties and take an extra risk which may involve them in injury, no award after that length of service—no compensation—is payable at all.
If one officer, being conscientious, takes the risk and is injured, and the other is a little more cautious, at the end of the 25 years' service both men may leave the service, one discharged through ill-health, and the other having completed his term of service. The one who comes out in the ordinary way on retirement can take on another job—most of these officers do—to supplement his pension; the other, who was more conscientious and was disabled, because of his disability is unable to take another job, and is thereby severely penalised. I think that this is a matter which ought to be examined again with great care.
I am not suggesting that at any time any police officer would be backward if an emergency arises. I have great admiration and respect for the way in which police officers carry out their duties, but it has been put to me by policemen now serving that in the light of the present arrangements there is an incentive to exercise a little extra caution when an officer is nearing the end of his term of service.
I am hoping, as my right hon. Friend has said, that this is not the final word on these pension matters. I hope that there will be further improvement. In the particular case of my constituent I shall ask that there shall be a special investigation and some additional payment in the light of the case which I hope to make out on some other occasion to the Home Secretary, or to the Joint Under-Secretary. Apart from that individual case, which, I hope, will be favourably considered, there is a general principle here which I trust the Joint Under-Secretary will look into.

6.6 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I should like to reinforce the comments made by my hon. Friend, the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) He referred to the police officer who meets with an accident, or who receives a disability while doing a difficult job in the police force before he retires, which prevents him from taking a post of some responsibility after he retires.
There is a further matter about which police forces are very concerned. It is the case in which a police officer, in the course of his duty, is completely incapacitated from doing any other work when he retires. It is felt that insufficient consideration has been given to cases of that kind, and that they should be dealt with differently from cases where police officers retire at the end of their period of service.
I think that the case to which my hon. Friend has referred is one which requires looking at again. A special arrangement should be made, particularly in view of the legislation which may come forward later, for the additional protection of the police officer who, in the course of his duty, receives an injury which makes it impossible for him to work again. In making this request, I am speaking for the police forces of the country. They have very difficult work to do, and they do it without considering the consequences. There should be some additional pension for a policeman who has to retire through injury so that he does not have to worry, after his retirement, how he will maintain his family.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, may I say that I am sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) will appreciate that the points which they have raised go a little wider than the Regulations now under discussion. I will certainly take note of what they have said; but I am sure that they do not expect me to deal with these matters just now.
I should like to answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), since it relates to the remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about the ungenerosity of the award, and the question of additional cost being borne by the police officers. The cost of the new scheme is being divided equally between the police officers, on the one side, and the police authorities and the Exchequer, on the other side. It is true that the police officers will bear 80 per cent.—rather more than three quarters—of the additional cost of the new scheme, but that is because the police authorities and the Exchequer are carrying the greater part of the existing cost.
Police officers are bearing only a small proportion—about 20 per cent.—of the existing cost and this is reflected in their share of the additional cost. Although the cost of future widows' awards will be divided on a 50–50 basis, police authorities and the Exchequer will still bear about 75 per cent. of the cost of police officers' pensions. I make that point to put the matter in perspective.
The point was raised of the inadequacy of the awards during the first ten-year period. Obviously, it is impossible to work out a scheme on the basis of men who die during the first ten years of their service. The flat rate minima are already a good deal more generous to these men than to those in other schemes. In passing from a flat rate scheme to a scheme related to the husband's length of service, the advantages are bound to be less for a man with short service. That is a proposition which it is almost impossible to get round. I hope that with this explanation, the House will feel able to pass the Regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

6.12 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
These Regulations are mutatis mutandis precisely similar to those which have just been described by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Their effect is identical. As far as I know, no special Scottish points arise to which the attention of hon. Members need be drawn, and the Regulations have been approved by the statutory Scottish Police Council.

6.13 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We on this side accept the Regulations, not because we think they are generous but because they are an improvement on the present position concerning widows' pensions. There is a great deal of discussion nowadays about conditions of service, not only in the police force but in many public services.
There are, perhaps, two reasons for making conditions better, and those two reasons may apply to these Regulations tonight. First, their provisions are considered to be just, and secondly, there is need to increase recruitment. Both of these reasons apply to our police service. In some areas more than in others, there is a great shortage of men in the police force.
We on this side are surprised to find that the Solicitor-General is dealing with these Regulations tonight.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who is the Joint Under-Secretary of State, has been called away on the death of his mother. That is why I am deputising for him tonight.

Miss Herbison: I am very sorry indeed that that is the reason for the Under-Secretary's absence. I was not suggesting that the Solicitor-General would be unable to deal wtih the Regulations, for anyone who tried to fathom them could only come to the conclusion that a legal mind was necessary to understand them. I was not suggesting that the presence of the Solicitor-General implied any disservice to the House.
We have been told by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that there was agreement on the Regulations. I accept that there was agreement on both sides, by the police authorities and by the police force or the Police Federation, but we all know what happens in negotiations. The employees' representatives put forward, as strongly and forcibly as they can, what they consider the just demands of the men and women they represent, but at the end of the day they have often to accept something which they consider to be much less than their just demands. The matter then comes forward to the House, and we are told that there has been agreement.
I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) said about the English Regulations and I wish to raise just one further matter. These Regulations do not make it automatic that after 1st April every widow will get the increased pensions which are detailed in the Regulations. If those already serving as police officers or


constables wish their widows to get the full pension as outlined they must pay not only the 6¼ per cent. as against the present 5 per cent., but they must also make payment of back contributions, which in some instances might be considerable.
Page 9 of the Regulations includes a table covering from one completed year of service to 20 years of completed service. The man who by 1st April will have completed 20 years' service must pay, over and above the 6¼ per cent. contribution, 4·1 of the rate expressed as a percentage of pensionable pay. I know, also, that the Regulations provide for those already in the service to opt out of the increased pension. If they desire to continue only with the 5 per cent., their widows will receive the present very inadequate pension. Surely, when the pensions were being discussed it would have been sensible and just to decide that after 1st April, provided that 6¼ per cent. was paid, every widow would have the full pension that the Regulations provide.
Like my hon. and right hon. Friends, I hope that these Regulations are not the last word and that serious consideration will be given to making provision to give to every widow the full pension without the added contribution that must be paid by those already serving in the police. That is a just request and I make it because in the areas where there is a grave shortage of personnel it might be one way of showing to those whom we desire to attract that in the service the greatest thought is given not only to the man who renders such valuable and fine service for the community, but that the greatest consideration is given to his widow.
Although I cannot expect the Solicitor-General for Scotland to give an undertaking tonight, I hope that the point I have made will be seriously considered by the Police Council and particularly by the police authorities in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the point raised by the hon. Lady. As she knows, regulations are never final. They are not made in perpetuity and I assure her that the point she has made will be kept in mind. I think that the hon. Lady will realise that this is a problem which crops up every time there is a change in the pension scheme. The

problem of what to do with the new entrants is whether we give a gift to those who have been in before the new scheme starts or whether they have to make some sort of contribution in relation to the back service during which they were not paying a full contribution. I assure the hon. Lady that the point will be kept in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ARMY EDUCATIONAL CORPS (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am glad to have the chance of drawing attention to scandalous incompetence by the War Office which has resulted in serious injustice to a particularly public-spirited Army officer.
Captain Allison had a remarkable career during the war. After joining the Territorials in 1936, he volunteered in June, 1940, for the Commandos. As a commando he participated in bomb disposal and minesweeping and he served in the Channel on a Dutch trawler manned by a Polish crew. In 1941, he took part in the Lofoten Islands operation. In 1942, he was a battle-school instructor. In 1943, he was a parachute instructor. He broke his ankles when parachuting but, nevertheless, he took part in the crossing of the Rhine as a despatcher, which is a very hazardous operation, as the Under-Secretary of State for War will know. On that occasion, his aircraft force-landed in Holland.
It would be hard to surpass this officer's career for courage and adventurousness. If I may say so, it compares in adventurousness even with the career of the Under-Secretary himself. One would have hoped that, as a result of that, the hon. Gentleman might have treated this case more in the spirit of a fellow ex-Service man with a sense of justice and less in the spirit of a Minister in charge of a bureaucracy which has plainly made a serious error of justice and of judgment. But that was not to be.
This is the story in brief, and I do not think that the facts are in dispute. In 1952, Captain Allison was a secondary school teacher with good prospects, but he answered an appeal advertised in the Press for ex-Service officers to rejoin the Royal Army Educational Corps. In October, 1952, he was interviewed by a selection board. The spokesman of the board, a Major Barratt, invited him to ask questions of the board.
My constituent asked two. First, he asked, "What rank will I have if a rejoin?" The answer was, "You will have the rank of captain." The second and the important question was, "Will my previous service in the rank of captain count towards increments of pay?" That service amounted to two years. Major Barratt, on behalf of the board, replied, "Your previous paid service in the rank of captain will count towards increments of pay." Major Barratt repeated this several times during the early part of 1953.
My constituent, after careful financial calculations—for he has a wife and four children—decided to accept, and he rejoined as an officer of the Royal Army Educational Corps on 1st January, 1953. I ask the Minister to note that date. He reported for duty and at the end of the first month he received his pay cheque, which showed no payment of the increments to which he was entitled, that is 2s. 6d. each for two years. It should have been 34s., but instead he was paid 29s. He immediately wrote to his agents, Messrs. Glyn Mills. who asked the War Office for a decision on this point.
The War Office decision came on form F.2.B.2 on 1st January, 1954, nearly 11 months after my constituent's application through his agents. The answer from the War Office said that as his previous service was not in the Royal Army Educational Corps he was not entitled to increments. This was directly contrary to the statement made by his selection board, on which he based his decision to join the R.A.E.C. My constituent, therefore, took this matter up with his commanding officer. On the commanding officer's advice he took it up by appeal to the Army Council. He appealed to the Army Council in March, 1954, and the reply from the Army Council came

in February, 1955. That is another 11 months; and when it came, the decision merely confirmed the wrong decision previously taken by the Department concerned in the War Office.
My constituent, still keeping to the proper channels in every way, decided to petition Her Majesty and, with the help of the relevant Department of the War Office, he framed his petition and sent it forward in February, 1955. He has not yet had a reply to the petition. These are the plain facts and I do not think that the Minister will dispute them.
I should like to make two major points. The first, on the substance of the issue, is that on every count of common fairness and straight dealing Captain Allison should have been paid those increments. It was on that basis that he accepted the job. He had good prospects where he was and, without doubt, he would have been a headmaster by now. If in any private firm a person makes an undertaking like that and plainly states what the salary is to be, that salary is paid. It is not decided afterwards to pay a man a smaller salary when he has thrown up one job to come to the firm, when he has changed his house—and that means a great deal in these days—and when he has uprooted himself and his family.
In any private firm such conduct would be against the law, let alone the fact that the victim's trade union would be on the employer in a moment. In any case, the victim could leave the firm, which is not so easy in the case of the Army. Why should not the same ordinary decent feeling as is shown by a private employer towards his employees be shown by the War Office towards this officer? Captain Allison has now been underpaid a sum of £334 8s. and I submit, on behalf of my constituent, that that amount should be paid to him.
The second point is that, quite apart from the merits of the case, the delays on the part of the War Office have been shocking and unforgivable. First, it took this Department, F.2 B.2, more than 10 months from February, 1953, to January, 1954, to reach a decision, as it happened the wrong decision. Secondly, it took the Army Council 11 months from March, 1954, to February, 1955, to confirm this wrong decision. Thirdly, the petition to Her Majesty which, presumably, went through the War Office—I would like to


know that—was sent in February, 1955, and no reply has yet been received.
I would emphasise that this officer has acted with perfect propriety from the beginning. He has gone through the proper channels with the advice of his commanding officer in every respect. In the most moderate terms he has set out his case to me. The strongest sentence in that case was as follows:
I feel, too, that the dilatory attitude of the War Office is a poor return for the efforts I have made to be of service in the past and hope to make in the future.
I think that for an ex-commando this must be a record of moderate language in all the circumstances.
I am not content to see people who are patient, who are public-spirited, and who go through the proper channels being pushed against the wall when other people and other groups in the community, who throw their weight about more, get a long way further. Quite apart from the delay that this officer has experienced, I would draw the attention of the Minister to the delay that I have experienced as a result of the dilatoriness of the War Office. I wrote to the Minister on 1st November, 1955, and in my letter I said:
I would be most grateful if you would look into this case personally. Unless speedy action is taken by the War Office, I propose to raise the matter in the House.
On 28th February this year the Minister said, in reply to a Question I put on the Order Paper:
This officer is claiming more pay than the Regulations prescribe on the ground that he was led to believe that he would receive a higher rate of pay on joining the Royal Army Educational Corps. I hope that a decision on this claim will be reached shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 103.]
What is "shortly"? So far, it has taken the War Office three years to reach a decision on this case and the Minister now tells me that a decision will be reached shortly. Yet nothing has happened. There has been no event since 1st January, 1953. If the situation had been changing, if there had been some new factor, it would have been different. But nothing has changed. There has simply been this interminable delay on the part of the War Office, and also delay by the Minister personally in dealing with this matter when I put it to him in November last year. It seems to me to be

a perfectly plain case of injustice which any right-thinking person would decide in five minutes without further consideration.
There is only one satisfactory end to this case which I now request from the Minister, namely, a full apology from him and the payment of £334 8s. to my constituent.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to underline the case which has been made with great restraint by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). Whatever the ultimate decision may be, it is clear that there has been unpardonable delay; unpardonable until one realises that the reason for this delay is that the real bosses in the War Office are not the soldiers but the gentlemen who hold the key to the cash box, that is to say, the finance elements in the War Office.
I have not the slightest doubt that when Major Barrett was asked this question he looked at the regulations to see what was the scale of pay, realised the service of this officer, and gave a decision in good faith. As the chairman of the selection board, he was speaking on behalf of the War Office and interpreting the regulations to this officer, who, subsequently, made up his mind to come into the Service on the basis of that answer. It seems to me beyond dispute that the officer would not have come into the Service had he not received that answer. Therefore, apart from any niceties of the interpretation of regulations, or what the finance branches of the War Office may say, it seems to me that the Army and the Minister, as spokesman for the Army, are committed to the payment of 34s. a day to that officer from the day he was commissioned.
I should have thought that was beyond any shadow of doubt and it is not much good for the Minister to say—if I may anticipate his reply—" Here are the regulations. We cannot brush them aside." Of course he can, if he wants to do so. There is provision in the Royal Warrant for the issue of 'special rates of pay in such circumstances. It has been done before and it can be done again.
I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that Captain Allison is not the first officer who has received this kind of rough treatment. There are other officers of the R.A.E.C. who have suffered similarly. I


have no doubt that this is one of the worries of the Minister and of the finance branch of the War Office. They are afraid to say "Yes" to Captain Allison, particularly now that this matter has been publicly ventilated, and they have been doing some sums to find out how much they have let themselves in for.
The Government introduced recently a new Pay Code to help to attract people to the Army and to stay in it. One way of keeping people in the Army is to have contented officers and other ranks. This means that authority, which has the last word, must behave with restraint and must stand by its mistakes when its subordinates make mistakes. My hon. Friend was right in saying that any firm engaged in private business which made such a mistake would have the best of a bad job and would pay up. Although this is the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, I hope that when the hon. Gentleman replies he will say that this Adjournment was not necessary and that he has acceded to my hon. Friend's demand. I hope the Minister will say that he has agreed as a special case, under the special provisions of the Royal Warrant which permit him to do so, immediately to authorise the payment of 34s. a day which this officer was promised, and without which he would certainly not have accepted a commission in the R. A. E.C.
There is another important point for the future. Would the hon. Gentleman please give instructions to the chairmen of selection boards that when interviewing officers, particularly officers with previous service who come forward as applicants for regular commissions, "off the cuff" interpretations should not be given? There ought to be a warning to chairmen of selection boards, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider issuing a pamphlet so that officers in the position of Captain Allison are not exposed to this kind of mistake.
I hope, also, that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that, where mistakes are made, it does not take three years before they are considered. My hon. Friend is right in saying that he hopes the Minister will start by explaining how it comes about that an officer who has sought to behave in a way one would expect an officer with such a record to

behave, is treated with such scant courtesy. This is a genuine complaint, and we want to hear fully from the Minister why it has taken so long to deal with this matter.

6.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I am always glad, whenever possible, to accept advice from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and perhaps I may therefore begin by explaining the delay, which I should like to say, straight away, I do regret. The reason why there has been such delay is that this is a complicated case, as I think I shall show in the course of my remarks, and that it has needed very careful consideration indeed.
The other point is that we are the first to admit that this is a borderline case, and we have given it particularly sympathetic and careful consideration in an effort to make absolutely certain that no factors that might have counted in Captain Allison's favour have been overlooked. Incidentally, the reason why there was some delay in answering some of the letters of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was given by me in my letter to him of 11th January, in which I explained that what had held up my reply in that particular letter was the need to make further inquiries of Captain Allison himself and to wait, as we did for some weeks, until he had provided that information.
Having said that, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Woolwich, East for raising this matter in the House, and thus giving me a chance of putting the War Office point of view; and I hope that when I have finished my remarks he will agree that there is a War Office point of view, that the case is not quite as clear as he has made out, and that there are considerable arguments on both sides.
Before going any further, I think it would be only right for me to remind the House that, as the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, Captain Allison has now submitted a petition to Her Majesty.

Mr. Mayhew: Captain Allison submitted the petition to Her Majesty in February of last year. I think the hon. Gentleman's word "now" is quite wrong.

Mr. Maclean: He has submitted a petition to Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, no final decision has yet been taken,


and the case is still open. As I have said, the reason for the delay is that we were unwilling to take a final decision unfavourable to Captain Allison, which I think I shall be able to show we could quite easily have done. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish me to take a snap decision, which could quite easily have come down on the side against his constituent.
Perhaps I may give a few instances of the difficulties which we have had to encounter in this case. Captain Allison claims that he joined the R.A.E.C., having given up his job as a schoolmaster in civil life after being advised that his rate of pay would be 34s. a day. Now, there is absolutely no question, and I do not think the hon. Member disputes this, about what his correct entitlement was. Captain Allison's correct entitlement was 29s. a day, and about that there is no doubt whatever. The whole argument turns on whether Captain Allison was, as he himself suggests and as the hon. Member has suggested today, induced to take a commission in the Army on the basis of wrong information, and whether, having done so, he then suffered material loss as a result of that decision. Perhaps I may outline the regulations which govern Captain Allison's pay and pay in the Royal Army Educational Corps generally.
The rules are set out in Regulation 130 of the Pay Warrant, 1950, which states that
…non-Regular commissioned service during a national emergency shall reckon towards increment of pay, and previous periods of service in a paid rank shall count towards increment in the same or lower rank, with a number of exceptions.
These exceptions, which as far as this case is concerned are the essence of the case, include the Royal Army Educational Corps and a number of other technical corps. For officers in these corps, the only previous service which they may count towards increment of pay is service in the arm concerned. So it is that an officer joining the Royal Army Educational Corps after a break in his service cannot count his previous commissioned service in the Army if the previous service had been completed in any arm other than the R.A.E.C.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Dudley suggests, that the Pay Warrant gives discretion to the Army Council

to make exceptions from this rule, but in practice the only exceptions which have been allowed have been made in favour of officers who transferred into the Royal Army Educational Corps direct from some other arm without a break in service in circumstances which would have involved them in an immediate loss of pay if the provisions of the Pay Warrant had been strictly applied. I think that that was probably the case with the hon. Member for Dudley himself, and that, if he had continued, then the Army Council could have made an exception in his case.
Therefore, in considering Captain Allison's history, what we need to determine is whether his previous time in the Army can be reckoned towards increment to determine his starting pay in his new appointment. The hon. Gentleman has given some account of Captain Allison's history. As he said, Captain Allison served in the Territorial Army in the Oxford and Bucks. Light Infantry before the war, was transferred to the Reserve, was recalled in February, 1940, to the Active List and served with distinction, as the hon. Member has told us, until the end of 1945, when he was released.
Captain Allison then had four years and 234 days in the rank of acting or temporary captain, and none of that service was with the R.A.E.C. On 23rd June, 1952, he applied for a Regular commission in the R.A.E.C., but was not eligible because he did not possess a university degree. In August, 1952, he accordingly amended his application to one for a short service commission, which was granted and on 23rd October, 1952, he appeared before a War Office interviewing board, which is the interviewing board on which so much depends. His application was approved, and he subsequently reported for duty on 1st January, 1953. Therefore, as far as the regulations of the Pay Warrant are concerned, it is quite clear that they applied without any question at all to Captain Allison. He does not qualify, nor does he qualify for the exception which I mentioned a few moments ago of unbroken service.
Thus, it is quite clear that when he joined, he was not entitled to a rate of pay higher than 29s. a day, and was not entitled to 34s. a day. Therefore, the only part of his claim which is open to discussion is, first, whether or not he was


misled into believing that he would get more pay, and, secondly, whether he suffered a material loss as the result of this misinformation, if such misinformation there was. If both those points could be clearly established, then there would certainly be a case for giving him a higher rate of pay, notwithstanding the Regulations.
First of all, the interview board in October, 1952: Captain Allison says that he asked certain questions and was given certain answers. He says that in answer to his inquiry about previous service, he was told that his previous embodied service would count towards pay and he was further told that as he had held the paid rank of captain for more than four years, he would be paid at the rate of 34s. a day. This assertion has been carefully investigated and it has taken a certain amount of time to get the people together and to get them to search their minds for this conversation with this one particular officer.
We have been trying to find ways in which we could help Captain Allison, if it were possible. As a result of these careful investigations, including the inquiries made of Major Barratt, who was the officer who, according to Captain Allison, gave him the information, we have failed to establish definitely whether Captain Allison asked those questions and what answers were given to him. We have been unable to obtain confirmation of his claim that he asked those questions.
Although in a case of this kind the onus of proof must necessarily rest with the claimant, we would not reject his claim simply because he has not been able to prove and we have not been able to confirm what he was told at the interview. We would not reject it on those grounds alone.

Mr. Wigg: Has the Under-Secretary inquired from Major Barratt whether Major Barratt himself was aware of the conditions of Article 130 of the Royal Warrant? If Major Barratt's regiment was other than the R.A.E.C., it is quite likely that like Captain Allison he did not know of the existence of that regulation.

Mr. Maclean: I will certainly look into that. It is certainly true that at that time

there was doubt among officers about how these rather complicated Regulations applied. We do not exclude the possibility that Captain Allison was misled, but we have not been able to find proof that he was.

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that the Under-Secretary is not challenging that the officer himself was under the impression that he had been told, because from correspondence with his Army agents, immediately at the beginning of 1953, it is perfectly clear that he himself was under the impression of having been told.

Mr. Maclean: No, I am not challenging that he is under that impression, but I think that the hon. Member would agree that in cases of this kind it is necessary to have more confirmation in addition to the unsupported claim of one party. That is the point.

Mr. Mayhew: The Under-Secretary will agree that there are one or two other cases similar to Captain Allison's and it would be a strange coincidence if they all wrongly got this impression from their selection boards.

Mr. Wigg: It is beyond dispute that other officers were troubled by the same doubt and if Major Barratt was not a member of the R.A.E.C., or did not know of the existence of this particular regulation, there seems to be a strong supposition that, in fact, Captain Allison asked the question and got the impression which he says he got.

Mr. Maclean: I think that that is possible, but my point is that we have tried—and it is one of the reasons that the matter has taken so long—to find definite proof to satisfy ourselves on that point—and we have gone out of our way to do it—but, unfortunately for Captain Allison, that definite confirmation of his statement has not been forthcoming.
That fact in itself, however, would not have been enough to cause us to reject his claim entirely. We have also felt obliged to go into the question of the financial loss which he claims that he sustained as a result of the misleading information which he alleges he was given on this occasion. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East will agree that that is also relevant. Captain Allison pleads damnification, that is to


say, he claims that because he was misinformed he took action which has caused him loss.
We have been into that matter very carefully indeed and that, again, has been the reason for the delay, which I admit and which I regret, but which has been necessary in order to collect detailed information on this subject as well. Captain Allison's rate of pay when he joined was 29s. a day. That gave him an annual income of £943. In May, 1953, when he moved into married quarters, he became entitled only to a lower rate of marriage allowance at 15s. 6d. a day and his annual income then fell to £891, from which he paid an annual rental of £100.
Captain Allison has been good enough to provide us with details of his income in civil life. His salary as a full-time teacher was £650 a year. He then received fees as a part-time evening instructor at the rate of £40 a year. He received wages as an assistant at Hinksey Baths at the rate of £39 6s. 11d. He received fees for swimming lessons at Hinksey Baths at the rate of £25 a year. He also received, in return for part-time instruction given to a spastic child, another £40 a year he received £20 a year from a firm of motor delivery and transport agents and £10 a year for part-time agricultural work.
Taking all these additions, his total annual income was £824 6s. 11d. a year, from which he paid an annual rental of £75. That compares with an annual income of £943, later falling to £891, less £100, which he received in the Army. In addition to that, Captain Allison also claims that he undertook certain financial commitments, as a result of the information which he was given, including the acquiring of a house on a mortgage. He did all this under the impression that his rate of pay—I am sorry to go into so much detail, but I wanted to make this—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for undertaking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I object to the Second reading of this Bill mainly because of Clause 21 and my concern for the future of the so-called Lancaster Canal. The proposals in the Bill may seriously affect the life and the industry of the southern part of my constituency. In fact, a number of objections have been lodged against this Clause, including one by the local authority most affected, the South Westmorland Rural District Council.
This is only a short Clause when compared with some of the others, but there is a very big principle involved in it, and one which I suggest is something bigger than a Committee point. It ought not to have been difficult to have met the understandable fears of the objectors, and one would have hoped that it would have been possible to meet them and to clear this up before the Second Reading of the Bill. However, the Transport Commission has been slow, and, although it is to meet the objectors in the course of this week and the following week, I think it is to be regretted that it has not done so somewhat earlier.
One is always reluctant to criticise the Transport Commission when it has succeeded in finding a way of taking an old and disused canal and turning it to a new and profitable use, and, at the same time, adding to the revenue of the Commission. But I cannot do otherwise this evening, because the Commission is taking such powers as seem to threaten the legitimate interests of others. This canal, like many others, was constructed in the reign of King George III, and statutory power taken to take the headwaters from a small river, locally very important, in order to fill the canal. But, at the same time, in order not to prejudice the proper rights of the riparian owners, a number of provisions were included in the Act governing the system of the control of the water and also the construction of a reservoir to ensure that


the flow during the dry season should in no way be impaired.
The quantity of water then taken was not great, and, at the same time, a great benefit was brought to the county. Coal could be transported to it cheaply, and lime and limestone carried away, and the products of many important local industries. The industries sited in that area were numerous and important. They are still important, and they still depend to a great extent on supplies of water from this river. One of them, a paper mill, has plans for expansion to the great advantage of the neighbourhood. But, of course, water is the "life-blood" of a paper mill, and this mill cannot expand unless it can be assured that the existing water supply will in no way be reduced.
Then there is a manufactory of combs which was founded in 1704, and I believe, is the oldest coal mill in Europe. It still uses water from this river for power and there are natural apprehensions about the disturbance to that business if power is not available at certain times of the year. There is a new milk factory and one need not expand on the importance of a good supply of water to a milk factory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to cool the milk and not to put into it—unless hon. Members opposite like having their milk tainted and sour in the warm weather. All that these and other industries ask is that they should continue to enjoy their fair share of the normal and flood water, and that is what appears to be threatened.
It is interesting that the Transport Commission plans to use this old canal no longer as a navigation channel, but as an aqueduct. The Commission intends to convey water in unspecified quantities into Lancashire and there sell it to Imperial Chemical Industries, a very ingenious development which need not necessarily harm my constituents. On the other hand, it is possible that it may.
Any hon. Member who has noticed subsection (3) of this Clause—which I call the "guilty conscience" subsection—will see that something beyond the statutory powers enjoyed by the Commission has apparently been going on for some time. If this business of using the canal as an aqueduct shows a good profit, there is every temptation for the Commission to try to develop it, and get as much water as possible to run down the canal

and sell it to their customers in Lancashire.
There is nothing in this Bill to show the quantities of water they intend to sell, or to limit those quantities, or to give any assurance to the industries further down the river that their businesses will in no sense be damaged. These industries in Westmorland are not small, but they are a great deal smaller than the Transport Commission and Imperial Chemical Industries. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable that I should ask that they be given the proper protection of this House.
There is also the public interest which is affected. The South Westmorland Rural District Council is anxious about the supply of water to augment the public water supply which in some parishes is inadequate. I submit that it cannot be right that all the reserve supplies of water in this district should be conveyed into another county and there sold. Surely it cannot be right, because in the end the local authority would be put to a much greater cost than if it could be assured of an existing supply.
It should have been possible for all this to be cleared up before the Second Reading of the Bill, but, in common fairness, surely the local authority should be assured of a share of this water; not that it should have something for nothing, but in return for a fair consideration payable to the owners of these water rights. The vital interests and rights of riparian owners should be protected, and in particular, these traditional industries lower down the river should be assured of their water supply. It should not be difficult to do that, and so far as I can see the only expense to which the Commission could possibly be put would be the cost of substituting for the ancient system of valves and gauges, something more accurate and up-to-date.
At last meetings are to be held, but I hope that when we see this Bill again, after the Committee stage, Clause 21 will have a new look and that the offensive sub-section (3) will have disappeared. If not, I shall object to the Third Reading of the Bill, as I have objected to the Second Reading, and I have no doubt that, realising the justice of these objections, other hon. Members will give me their support.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I wish to support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) not only on the particular grounds which he has very properly related to the interests of his constituency and the neighbouring part of the country, but on the general question of the way in which the British Transport Commission approached the problem of looking after its own interests.
About two years ago we had occasion in this House to refer to some matters of principle when the question of closing a stretch of canal was raised. It is not only the interests of the Commission which have to be considered. There are very often wider public interests, and there are wider public interests in this matter. There are the interests of those who live in the neighbourhood and who have this supply of water as one of their natural resources. It is used for domestic and commercial purposes, and is part of the irrigation system of that part of the county.
Although I am a Lancastrian I can understand a Member representing another county objecting to water moving from his county into mine. I feel that it is wrong that a prior claim should be established in Lancashire—by Statute or by inference—to some water which falls and is collected in a neighbouring county. We have a duty to the people in the county to see that the water which becomes available there can be used by the people who need it.
In this case, a supply of water is collected and delivered through the becks and canals. It finds its way to certain local industries in the neighbourhood. Those industries have been born, and have developed and grown, very often relying considerably upon this supply of water—not necessarily upon an abundance of water, or even a given quantity of water, but a constant supply of water. Now the Commission wants to supplement its revenue by what I agree is a bright and commendable idea in many ways. I hope that in due course it will be able to increase its profits by selling some water in another place to another company—I.C.I. I have no doubt that that company can do with it, but should not be allowed to do so to the detriment

of those who, over the years, have come to rely upon this supply of water.
My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that for some time objections have been made to this Clause, yet it seems that there has been no coming together of the conflicting interests. I submit that that is very naughty of the Transport Commission. It is a big and powerful organisation, with a very considerable influence in many places, and it has a duty to observe its obligations to smaller people. It should have seen to it that before this House was asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill—including as it does this offensive subsection—all the aspects of the matter were discussed with the interested parties.
This House often regards itself as under an obligation to look after the interests of major public bodies, and there might well have been a danger that, in the great flow of business with which the House has to deal every day. a small matter like this would have crept through. It might even be that the Commission was counting upon its creeping through unobserved, although I hope that that was not the case. I hope that what has been said in this debate will have the effect of encouraging the Commission to come to terms with the local interests in a spirit of perfect harmony—because there is no reason why harmony should not prevail. If that is done we may be prepared to see the Bill through its remaining stages. Failing that, I join my hon. Friend in the warning he has uttered, that unless a reasonable agreement is reached in this respect some opposition must be raised to the later stages of the Bill.

7.13 p.m.

Brigadier Sir Harry Mackeson: I shall delay the House for only two or three minutes. First, since my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) is absent on a Parliamentary delegation, I want to point out that the Kent County Council has lodged a petition against the Bill upon the ground that it interferes with the county council's rights in certain property. The site which affects me most is in the area of Folkestone Harbour, in respect of which it is the intention of British Railways eventually to electrify the line. British Railways want to construct sidings on some land which has been


earmarked by the county council for educational purposes.
I gather that the point is not a very big one, and that the county council is really thinking mainly about its rights of way and fences, rather than the whole principle. The principle is a very important one to the people on the coast and to everyone who lives between here and Folkestone and Dover. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover would be very interested in this matter if he were here, and I also know that the majority of people in this area, especially those who travel to the Continent and to seaside resorts along that part of the Coast of England, would like to see an improvement in rail services by electrification.
I merely want to express my hope that a compromise will be reached, and to suggest that the matter might have been dealt with a little more effectively and, indeed, tactfully, if both promoters and petitioners had informed local Members of Parliament of the situation before the present stage was reached. I remember the enormous expenditure which the ratepayers in the county of Kent were put to when the Kent Water Bill went through the House. It was the longest Committee stage of a Private Bill which the House has ever known, and it was about the most expensive. I hope that that procedure will not be repeated at the ratepayers' expense in this case, and that no unnecessary delay will be imposed upon the improvement of rail services to the Kent Coastal ports and resorts. I support the Second Reading.

7.15 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have only a short statement to make. Perhaps I might first deal with the points which have been made by my hon. Friends just by saying that they are all matters which will be discussed upstairs. I have carefully noted them, and I certainly undertake to ensure that they are drawn clearly to the attention of the Commission. It is certainly my wish—and, I am sure, that of the Commission—that an attempt should be made to arrive at a sensible and practical solution. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) has said, namely, that the Commission's plans need not necessarily harm his constituents. I believe that my hon. Friend

the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) said much the same thing. I will endeavour to see that all their arguments are fully considered upstairs.
My main point is to draw attention to the fact that we are concerned here with Instructions. I understand that when hon. Members move them at a later stage they will be helped if I now indicate very shortly what is my view with regard to those Instructions.

Mr. Speaker: Before we come to the Instructions, we must obtain the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. H. Hynd: Before the Minister finishes, I should like to hear what he has to say about the criticisms of his hon. Friends in connection with the Commission's failure to meet the objectors. Is it a fact that these objectors asked for a meeting and that a meeting was refused them, or is there any kind of legitimate complaint?

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot answer that question. All I can say is that these questions will be dealt with upstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, to provide that the Commission in carrying out the works authorised by this Act shall not employ or cause to be employed any person who is paid, either directly or indirectly, by way of salary, contribution to superannuation fund or otherwise, any additional sum of money on condition that he does not join or maintain his membership of any trade union.
This Motion in no way criticises the contents of the Bill. We are fully aware of the fact that trade union conditions in the Commission are as good as they are anywhere in the country. It will be remembered, however, that in a number of debates upon Private Bills my hon. Friends and myself have draw attention to certain conditions operating in industry. Part II of the Bill deals with considerable works which are to be carried out in various parts of the country, many with names which sound peculiar to a Cockney like myself. I endeavoured to master their pronunciation, but I do not think that I need bother the House with that specific detail of the situation.
I can assure those of my hon. Friends who have been, and are, connected with the transport industry that we have no criticisms of the trade union negotiating machinery which exists inside that industry. We merely seek a specific assurance that a pernicious practice which Parliament has hitherto failed to remedy shall, if possible, be eliminated in connection with any works which are due to be carried out under the provisions of the Bill.
For the benefit of hon. Members who had not the advantage of hearing the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) in an earlier debate, I will recall that they drew attention to a peculiar relic of the early part of this century, an organisation known as "The Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society." You are probably getting a little tired of this name, Mr. Speaker. We feel it our responsibility to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that organisation includes in its rules one to the effect that the membership and benefits of the society, although paid for by the members, can be denied to a member who joins a legitimate trade union.
Many millions of pounds are involved in the Bill. We therefore ask that the position of this 56-year-old relic shall be reviewed. In these days it is unrealistic. It is an undeniable infringement of the rights of the individual that he should not receive benefits for which he has paid if he ventures to join a trade union. In the factory where I was a shop steward the workers had to disguise the fact that they had a trade union. If the foreman knew that we had a ticket we were probably out, and if the manager heard of it we were certainly out. We have advanced since those days. Trade unions are now recognised as equal partners in the affairs of the country.
I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is here. On 27th February he gave an undertaking to look into the matter and to see whether there had been complaints. This matter of complaints is not germane to the issue. The Parliamentary Secretary also suggested that there was machinery within the industry to remedy this evil, if it existed. We say to the

Parliamentary Secretary that in a case of this sort there are not two sides to negotiate. On the one side are the individuals who, rightly or wrongly, join the organisation in the expectation of certain benefits, but they do not constitute a side for negotiation.
We seek to ensure that any contractor engaged in connection with the works covered by the Bill shall not be eligible to carry out these works if he operates this infringement of the rights of the individual That is quite specific. We hope to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how far he has advanced in his investigations and whether he proposes to meet our requirements. My hon. Friends will have to decide what to do following the Minister's statement.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) has moved this Motion incisively and in langauge that could be clearly understood. As the result of the support it will receive from these benches, I hope we shall advance a little further than we did on the last occasion it was moved,
The Fair Wages Clause is accepted by authorities throughout the country as the sine qua non of Government contracts in relation to the employment of labour. After the debate which took place on the last occasion, all confusion about it ought to have been dispelled. We are not asking for the wages of persons employed by the British Transport Commission to be fixed at certain levels but that an inalienable right accepted by British people, by the Government and by British employers, shall be established in some way by a statement from the Government benches.
We are concerned with the fact that it is possible for an employer to dismiss a man if he is a trade unionist or to see that he does not advance in his occupation. The whole question of wages and collective bargaining can be left to the man's trade union, if he is allowed to belong to one. This foremen's association seeks to destroy that fundamental right. While it might not have been advisable for this provision to be incorporated in a local authority Bill, it seems quite proper to incorporate it in a Bill


concerned with a great Government undertaking.
Far be it from us to suggest that the conditions under which men work there are any worse than they are elsewhere—we hope that they are much better—or to suggest that any discrimination is shown by the Commission. We should feel much happier if the Instruction were incorporated in the Bill. The time has come when the Government and organised employers should make their statements on this matter. We shall not be led astray by the suggestion made by the Minister on the previous occasion that he would have to see how many complaints had been made to the Ministry in this connection.
I deal with discrimination in religious practices and I have found great difficulty in getting people who suffer from discrimination to make complaints. There is very great reluctance. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the reluctance of men in the present case, and the fact that, faced with the blandishments of increased salaries or rises in status, they might be prepared to forget the trade union principles for which we have fought in the past and to accept an inferior social status.
We condemn this association. As my hon. Friend said, it is a relic and although not a relic of George III, it is rather interesting that that monarch was introduced into our debate as one of those people who, perhaps, before going mad make all kinds of mistakes. I trust that on this occasion the Minister intends to help us, otherwise we may have to divide the House. And if we do not divide the House, we shall become perhaps much more irritating than we now are in pressing this point.

7.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): As the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) has already made clear, this is exactly the same question as that which we debated three weeks ago in our discussion on the Croydon Corporation Bill and also on other occasions. As on that last occasion—and for the same reasons—I must at the outset say that the Government strongly advise the House to reject this Motion. I shall not expound the reasons

at length, but I should like to summarise them, and deal with the points which I undertook on the last occasion to consider.
Before I come to the summary of the reasons why we think the Motion should be rejected I would like once again to assure the House that the Government do support the freedom of people to join the trade unions of their choice. That is the fundamental freedom that this House wants to assure in this matter. Equally, we must leave people free, if they want to, to join the association which is complained of—the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society. Whether or not we agree with its rules, or some of its rules, or whether we may think that they are out of date, the fact remains that the Society is a perfectly legal body with legal purposes, registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and, as such, is one which people must be free to join if they so wish. I agree, at the same time, that they should not have to join it under any threat, compulsion or victimisation, but the House must concern itself with both those freedoms.
With that introduction I should like to summarise the reasons for the advice which I must give on behalf of the Government. First of all, I must repeat what I said before—that as a matter of principle we believe that difficulties of this kind should be dealt with not by legislation but by the two sides within industry negotiating and settling them between themselves. That right, that principle, has been established over a long period in this country. It is one to which both sides of the House strongly adhere. It is certainly one which the party opposite not only believes in but practised—and rightly practised—when in power. It is also a principle held tenaciously by the trade union movement itself. It is no good saying that we can depart from this principle in the particular matter before us tonight without realising that by doing so we should be opening the door to pressures—which might become very dangerous—to depart from the principle in other matters as well.
On the last occasion, I reminded the House that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who is peculiarly associated with pressing this cause, referred on one occasion to the rule in this Society operating, as it were, as a "closed shop


in reverse." I agree that it is in that sense a form of closed shop rule, but I think we will all maintain that the principle of the closed shop is one which should not be decided by legislation—by Parliament—but by the two sides of industry through normal negotiating methods. I think that that argument is an unanswerable one of principle from which it would be extremely dangerous to depart.
Unions, in these days, do have a proper chance of organising and gaining their membership—and, therefore, their negotiating strength—in this field and at this level of staff just as in all others. I feel sure that were the hon. Member for Reading with us tonight he would certainly have claimed that A.S.S.E.T., the association with which he is connected, is well able to look after itself, well able to build up its membership and well able to negotiate. I am sure that he would not be prepared to say that it was too weak or incapable in any way of playing its part as a trade union in the normal processes of negotiation.

Mr. H. Butler: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could tell us what A.S.S.E.T. is in extenso?

Mr. Carr: In the international and other fields we get into such a habit of using these letters and code names that I am ashamed to say I do require notice of that question. I know that A.S.S.E.T. recruits its members among foremen and managerial staffs, but what the letters mean I must confess that I have, at the moment, forgotten. If the hon. Gentleman likes to tell me I should be glad to hear it—but I am glad to see that he finds it as difficult as do I.

Mr. H. Hynd: I think it is the Association of Supervising Staffs and Electrical Technicians.

Mr. Carr: It is always wise nowadays to have some technicians and electronics engineers with us.

Mr. Orbach: I must correct my hon. Friend—it is not Electrical Technicians, but Executives and Technicians.

Mr. Carr: I am glad to find that I am not the only one who is slightly confused in this matter. I must, however, reassert my first principle, which is that we believe that such difficulties as this should

be left to the two sides in industry to negotiate and resolve for themselves.
Secondly, even though we were to decide—wrong though that would be, in my view—that a difficulty such as this should be dealt with by legislation, it should be the subject of general industrial legislation and not of sporadic application as various Private Bills happen, almost by chance, to come before the House. Thirdly, in any event, in this particular case legislation is unnecessary to ensure the rights of trade unionism. As the hon. Member for Hackney, Central made clear, those rights are already safeguarded, because the British Transport Commission is firmly opposed to the imposition, as an employer, of a condition that an employee should not join a trade union or maintain membership of one.
Moreover, the Commission includes, as a general condition of all contracts a Fair Wages Clause in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution passed by this House in 1946. As the House will know, one provision of that Resolution is that the contractor shall recognise the freedom of his workpeople to be members of trade unions. In other words, the Fair Wages Resolution lays down the principle which I suggested to the House a little while ago was the one which it is essential to preserve—the freedom of people to be members of trade unions as they desire.
Finally, I want to refer to points raised in our debate on this subject when the Croydon Corporation Bill was before the House, three weeks ago. I want to do that because, as I have already been reminded, I gave an assurance to look into the points which were then raised and to report back on the next occasion. I am particularly anxious to do that because I realise that my assurance three weeks ago was at least partly responsible for the House agreeing to that Motion being then withdrawn.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said in the debate three weeks ago that this was a difficulty which should be dealt with in a general way and not by sporadic application in Private Bills, and that if general action were needed it could best be taken by amending the Fair Wages Resolution. I want to say quite definitely that I agree with that point of view, that if general action were needed


it should be taken by means of an Amendment to the Fair Wages Resolution.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West on that occasion went on to refer to the debate which took place in 1946, when the Fair Wages Resolution was approved by this House. It was in response to the references to that debate ten years ago that I undertook to make my inquiries, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I recalled briefly the points which were in question.
When that debate took place in October, 1946, the hon. Member for Reading moved an Amendment to paragraph 4 of the Resolution. Paragraph 4 is the vital one in this connection, because it is the one which lays down the freedom of people to join their trade unions, and perhaps it would be helpful if I read it. It says:
The contractor shall recognise the freedom of his workpeople to be members of trade unions.
A simple, plain, short statement of principle, clear and unambiguous.
The intention of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading, to that paragraph was the same as the intention of the Motion we are discussing tonight, but it was resisted by the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), who was then Minister of Labour, and I should like to quote briefly from that debate the main reason why the right hon. Member for Southwark advised the House to reject the Amendment on that occasion. Referring to the terms of paragraph 4 of the Resolution, he said:
we were relying upon paragraph 4 without any definition or restriction. We say that the words mean exactly what they say, that there is nothing to be added, and that we do not wish anything to be added.
I am sure that he had in mind the danger of which many of us are aware, of trying to elaborate definitions, and sometimes by elaborating them making them open to all sorts of legalistic argument. The right hon. Gentleman also had something to say about it being "a lovely little point for the lawyers to argue." We are seriously aware of the danger of weakening the definition, rather than strengthening it, by lengthening and elaborating it. Paragraph 4 as it stood had been approved by the National Joint Advisory Council, which, of course, includes among

its members representatives of the T.U.C. In 1946, the right hon. Member for Southwark stuck to the clear, simple and unambiguous wording of paragraph 4 as being the strongest statement of this freedom which we wanted to assert. The Government today still agree with the view that the right hon. Gentleman put forward at that time.
If I may again go back to 1946, the right hon. Member for Southwark went on to give an assurance to the House if hon. Members accepted the recommendation to reject the Amendment, and he said:
as soon as this Fair Wages Clause comes into operation, if the organisations, individually or jointly, can raise any question with regard to the operation in relation to the point referred to, I promise it will have immediate consideration, and that it will be referred to the tribunal mentioned so that a decision can be taken at once."—[OFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 715–6.]
It was on the basis of that assurance that the House agreed to accept the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, the then Minister of Labour, and the hon. Member for Reading withdrew his Amendment.
The question I was really asked last time was what had happened as a result of the assurance the right hon. Member for Southwark gave at that time, and that is what I should like to report to the House. Before doing so, however, I wish to confirm what the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, that the right hon. Member for Southwark had, previous to our last debate, written to my right hon. Friend to inquire what had happened in relation to this assurance since he had left the Ministry, and that information, which I am now about to give the House, has already been sent to the right hon. Gentleman. The information is that two complaints have been received as a result of that assurance. Both of those complaints were in 1947, when the right hon. Member for Southwark was still Minister of Labour. Both these cases were settled within the industry, without reference to the Industrial Court. I think perhaps the House might like to have, not the details, but just a brief summary of what those two cases were about.
In the first case, a foreman in a firm failed to secure promotion for which he was being considered, and he attributed his failure to his unwillingness to join the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit


Society. The firm denied that joining the Society was a condition of the promotion; they said that the man in question was on the short list, and the fact that another man was selected had nothing to do with willingness or unwillingness to join the Society.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Was the other man a member of the Society?

Mr. Carr: I believe that the other man was, but the reason why this case was solved was that the man in question, the complainant, was himself promoted very shortly afterwards to foreman, in spite of the fact that he did not join the Society. That, I think, is a clear example of how, when there was a query as to whether there was victimisation, the normal machinery within the industry, without legislation, was sufficient to ensure that no victimisation took place.
The second complaint related to the down-grading of a number of foremen following a reorganisation due to redundancy. It was considered that A.S.S.E.T. members had suffered particularly in the operation, but at the subsequent conference within the industry—again using the normal machinery that existed—it was satisfactorily established that the down-gradings had been carried out on the principle of "juniority," and that victimisation was not involved.

Mr. Ernest Davies: That is a new word.

Mr. Carr: I realise that I am using a new word, but if we can use "seniority" I think I am justified in using "juniority" as slightly more simple than "lack of seniority."
There again, in the second of the only two cases of complaint, is proof that came to us, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance in 1946, that in both those cases the normal machinery within the field of industry was sufficient to ensure that no victimisation took place.
If I may sum up, the Government advise the House that this Instruction is not necessary in this case because of the record and practice of the British Transport Commission; that in any case this difficulty, where it exists, should not be dealt with by sporadic action; that with the Fair Wages Resolution in the background, difficulties of this kind are best

and properly dealt with by negotiation between the two sides of industry; and, finally, that if there were to be need for general action, it would best be taken by considering an Amendment to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1946. However, the Government still believe, as the Labour Government did in 1946, that such Amendment is neither necessary nor, indeed, desirable, and the evidence I have quoted certainly does not contradict this view.
I should, however, like to repeat now the assurance which the right hon. Member for Southwark gave to the House in 1946, that any cases brought to our notice will have our immediate consideration; I think it is fair that we should do that. For the reasons which I have given I would advise the House not to support the Motion.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We are most obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his painstaking and helpful explanation, although we are somewhat disappointed at some parts of it. He has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and I should say at once that my hon. Friend would have been with us this evening had he not been detained at another meeting.
The Parliamentary Secretary disappointed us because he still rested his case on a point which we believe to be invalid. He said that he recognises the freedom of everyone to join a trade union, and that is common ground, but he went on to say that we must also recognise the practice of the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society because it is legal. That is the very reason this matter has been discussed on the Floor of the House; we have to accept it because it is legal, but we need not necessarily put up with it. It is for the House to alter the law. That is the purpose of the present Instruction. Our argument is that we have reached the stage of historical development at which we can say, "We will not permit discriminatory practices when those discriminatory practices are directed against trade unionism."
When my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) introduced a Bill on that subject, that Bill received a unanimous Second Reading; and I believe


that that reflected the views of the House as a whole. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary has more experience of his office he will not only know what A.S.S.E.T. stands for but will appreciate this widespread feeling that it is wrong in principle to accept discriminatory practices of this nature.
The second point which the Parliamentary Secretary made which we do not find acceptable is that this matter should be disposed of by negotiations between both sides of industry. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise that there are many matters relating to the conduct of both sides of industry which are defined by legislation. We think it right and proper that legislation should prevent discriminatory practices which upset the harmonious relations between both sides of industry. I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary reflects upon that he will agree that, if it is conceded that this is a discriminatory practice which can be avoided only by legislation, then it would be proper to resort to legislation to ensure that the negotiations within industry are conducted on a fair and proper basis.
I turn now to the other matters with which the hon. Member dealt and which are acceptable to us. He said—and we accept this—that the British Transport Commission is firmly opposed to any such practice. We assume, therefore, that for all practical purposes we need have no fears about the works to be carried out under the Bill, for the British Transport Commission will be responsible for them and it has declared to him that it is firmly opposed to these practices. That we accept and welcome.
The other matter which we accept—and there is no quarrel about this; the quarrel is whether legislation is necessary—is that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he believes this to be a matter for consultation. As he will appreciate, it is a difficult matter to discuss across the Floor of the House. We have made some progress through tonight's discussion and our previous discussion and we are very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary, not only for informing the House but for putting the position on record and for following the debate in the House to which reference was made on the last occasion, particularly in connection with paragraph 4.
I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to give us this further assurance—that he will discuss the matter with such hon. Members as have shown a particular interest in it in order that we may endeavour to clarify our minds about it and see whether it is possible or desirable to consider general legislation. I do not think there is anything between us on the fact that this is a matter, whichever view we take about it, which is more susceptible to general legislation than to sporadic legislation in different Private Bills which happen to come before the House.
I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to bind himself in any way, but if he can give an assurance that he is quite willing to discuss the matter with those hon. Members who are interested, I think we may be able to make progress.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: It is a great pity that the British Transport Commission should be brought into such a debate as this, because of its very good record in connection with the recognition of trade unionism and its practices. It is unfortunate for the Commission, just as it was unfortunate for the Croydon Corporation on the last occasion, particularly since we have had an assurance this evening that the Commission has stated that it is firmly opposed to the practices which we are discussing.
Why have we to be troubled, and why has the time of the House to be occupied, by discussing this question time after time? It seems to me extraordinary that in this year, 1956, it should be possible for any organisation to have as one of its rules that anyone who is a member of a trade union is to be excluded. That is quite out of harmony with the advances which we have made in the industrial field and with the opinion of both sides of the House.
It is all very well for the Government to say that they support the freedom of people to join trade unions of their choice, but that ought to be taken a little further and practices of this kind ought to be condemned. As far as I noticed, the Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about the undesirability of a rule of that kind. If he would use some words along those lines on behalf of the Government, it would at least give a lead towards what we want to achieve.
Like my hon. Friends, I think we ought to approach this matter through the proper channels and after proper discussion, but we want a lead from the Government on whether they feel this to be a wrong kind of rule. That is what we have lacked so far. When the Parliamentary Secretary said that the best way to deal with this was by an amendment 'to the Fair Wages Resolution, I was hopeful that he was about to suggest that he would propose such an amendment; but I gather from his later remarks that he feels that no such amendment is necessary. Whether that is the best way or not, I hope that the discussions suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will take place and that before they take place, and before this discussion has concluded tonight, we shall have a statement from the Government Front Bench condemning this kind of anti-trade union rule.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I do not wish to prolong the discussion or to enter into an acrimonious debate with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I feel that he has been rather scurvily treated by his own advisers. The first time he appeared at the Box to discuss the matter he dealt with it somewhat lightly but in a very conciliatory manner and offered to make inquiries. His advisers have served him up with the same brief tonight and have not told him much more about the problem. If he cannot get information from his advisers, he ought lo know a little more about this Society.
Furthermore, he must not rely on being able to ride off on discussions which took place a long time ago on the Fair Wages Resolution. This problem is not irrevocably linked with that subject, although hon. Members interested in this matter tried to take an extension of the principle involved in that Resolution into the field dealing with this ancient and, nowadays not quite so honourable an organisation—the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society.
It is not surprising that discussions about the Fair Wages Resolution came to no satisfactory result and it is certainly not surprising that not many complaints were received by the Ministry, because the

very nature of the problem is that in certain sections of the industry workers cannot get promotion to the grade of foremen unless they join this organisation. They know that perfectly well and they do not apply.
It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary gave an example of a man who got promotion in a particular form after complaints had been made, but it is perhaps legitimate to point out that this Society is legal because it is a benefit society. The contributions to this Society are paid normally by employees, they are part of the normal earnings of foremen and part of the conditions of his service. They are part of the contributions which provide for certain benefits for sickness and death.
The example the hon. Gentleman gave is that, because of this offending clause in the rules of the Society, a certain man agreed to forgo certain money benefits which were customary in order that he might remain a trade unionist. There is no harm in the benefit society; it is an admirable one and people should be able to belong both to the benefit society and to a trade union. Those points the Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind before he discusses the matter again in this House, or with those who want to bring an end to it.
The position is perfectly clear and I hope that the Minister of Labour may be able to pick up something from these debates, which surely affect industry as a whole. It is surely inadmissible in these days that in certain sections of industry promotion should no longer be on merit, but that the candidates for promotion should be filtered and screened by a provision of this kind. It is rejected in principle by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is rejected by the trade unions as a whole, and I hope that it will be rejected more emphatically by the Parliamentary Secretary tonight in response to speeches made by my hon. Friends. I hope that it is due to be killed. If the discussions we have had hitherto continue on the lines of the assurances given, I am sure that these debates will not have been a waste of time, but thoroughly worth while.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: This practice appears to me to cut right across the principles of trade unionism. For an employer to say to his employees,


"We are prepared for you to join any trade union—you have full permission to do so—but we shall give to those who do not join a trade union some advantage which we cannot give to you if you still remain a member of the trade union," means that the employer gives with one hand what he takes away with the other.
Years ago an employer said to a man, "We shall not employ you if you are a member of a trade union." Today he says, "We have got to employ you, but we will refuse to give you promotion or certain advantages because you remain a member of that union. If you want the advantages which we are prepared to give you must leave the trade union.'' That cuts right across the principles for which the trade union movement has stood for many years.

Mr. H. Butler: I do not propose to make another speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but there seemed to be a receptive gleam in the eyes of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested that there might be talks about this question, and when the hon. Gentleman referred to an amendment of the Fair Wages Resolution. If the hon. Gentleman is still as cheerful as he was then, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Carr: I would certainly be willing, as I always am willing, to meet hon. Members to discuss this or any other matter connected with my Department, but, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) realises, I cannot agree to meet that deputation with any commitments. I have stated the views of the Government on this matter. They are the same as were those of the Labour Government on this subject. We hold those views strongly, but I am perfectly prepared to meet a deputation and to listen carefully to what its members have to say.

Mr. H. Butler: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Steward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I tried to make it clear that I called "No" when you asked whether we agreed that the Motion should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I am sorry. I did not hear the hon. Member when I was asking whether the House agreed that the Instruction should be withdrawn.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 14.
May I first express my gratitude, and, I am sure, the gratitude of all those hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate, to Mr. Speaker for allowing us to have a general debate on the Kennet and Avon Canal by discussing this Motion with the following Motion, which is:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That they shall make adequate provision in the Bill—

(i) to ensure that the British Transport Commission allows no further deterioration to take place in the condition of the Kennet waterways and appliances, as defined in the Bill, until such time as Parliament shall determine; and
(ii) to secure the enforcement of such provision."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that meets with the convenience of the House, it appears to be a satisfactory course.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I gather that that meets with the approval of the House. Tonight we reach an important stage in the history of canals in general and the Kennet and Avon Canal in particular. It is especially important that we can say quite truthfully that this is a non-party matter. For many weeks and months now hon. Members on both sides of the House—

Mr. James Harrison: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do I understand from your Ruling that we are to discuss these two Instructions together in a general discussion on the canals and waterways of England as mentioned in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will take such discussion as is encompassed by these two Instructions.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Harrison) if I led him to think that I was tempting Mr. Deputy-Speaker to rule me out of order.

Mr. Harrison: I was not criticising the hon. Member, but I was thinking about


another aspect of the canals and wondering of I could introduce it into the discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I want to make it perfectly clear that the discussion must be limited to the scope of the Instructions.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I was saying that we can congratulate ourselves that this is a non-party matter, and that for many months we have joined together in our negotiations with the British Transport Commission to try to reach some agreement. I wish to say especially how grateful I have been to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the great help and instruction he has given me in the complicated questions of Private Bill procedure to enable us to reach the very happy situation in which I think we find ourselves in regard to these Instructions.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, in his wise decision to set up an impartial inquiry, has certainly set the stage for the House to reject the attempt of the Transport Commission to plan the closure of the Kennet and Avon Canal. It will be within the memory of the House that a body was set up by the B.T.C. called the Board of Survey. Without wishing to be rude to it, I should say that the Board could not strictly be called an impartial inquiry because it was very much an inquiry of the Commission.
In that Board of Survey it was recommended that no fewer than 791 miles of canals should be closed. It is a measure of the unity of this House in these matters that we have heard nothing more, for the time being at any rate, of those proposals and the present Bill is confined entirely to the question of the Kennet and Avon Canal. The waterway, which it is sought by the Bill to condemn, one of the most beautiful in England, stretching between Bath and Reading, is a broad canal which carries 80-ton barges and has locks at least 14 feet wide. It is interesting to note that not many years ago more than £1 million was spent on the Grand Union Canal to make it as wide as that over a distance of only 35 miles.
On the canal which we are now discussing the last barge—to the shame of those concerned—passed through it as long ago as 1948. Part of the canal was closed for repairs in 1950 and since

then no barge has been able to pass along the length of the canal. May I illustrate the importance of this canal and why it ought to be retained in use by saying something about the cost of inland water transport?
Fifty tons are propelled along this canal by a very tiny engine in a craft which is a great deal cheaper than a lorry because it carries thirty to forty times the weight of a lorry, which only carries once its own weight. The maintenance of these barges is extremely low. The boat pays no rates or taxes and often provides a home for a family free of rent and rates. It carries four or five times its own dead weight. It positively improves the stretch over which it passes, which is a great deal more than can be said for either a lorry or a trailer.
It needs no words of mine to show how much cheaper it is to use a canal than it is to use a railway, because rail-days are far more expensive to maintain than roads.
Let us turn to the cost of the abandonment of canals. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) will know that is is costing Nottingham Corporation no less than £93,000 to close two miles of canal which, if they had not been allowed to be abandoned twenty years ago, could have been put right for one-tenth of that cost. That is not the only item to which I wish to call attention in the matter of abandonment.
Even the Board of Survey itself admits that the Welsh pool and Newtown sift-etch, one of the most beautiful in the world, abandoned in 1954, cost £44,000 to maintain in the two years 1950–51. I know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are thinking that I am not sticking as close as I should to this Instruction, but I am trying to say that the Kennet and Avon Canal, far from being shut, ought to be kept open because it can be used not only economically but beneficially for all.
I should like to say a word about its use for pleasure. I do not want to weary the House by quoting a great many figures, but everyone knows that the use of inland waterways for pleasure boating is increasing by leaps and bounds every year. In one case, a large boat hirer on the Thames announced that six times


more use is being made of his craft now than five years ago. All this is very important when we consider our own canal and what could be done with it if it were revived and not allowed to be closed. The Kennet and Avon offers the greatest possible scope for those who wish to plan their holidays upon its beautiful waters. May I quote a few words from Mr. L. T. C. Rolts' "Inland Waterways of England."
Rennie's Kennet and Avon follows a course of great beauty particularly westwards from the summit tunnel at Savernake. From the little thatch-roofed village of Wootton Rivers, which lies almost within the shadow of the great downland camp on Martinsell, it winds level for fifteen miles through the rich vale of Pewsey to Devizes with the smooth green folds of the chalk downs marching always on the right hand. Then follows the great descent into the valley of the Bristol Avon where the canal clings to the wooded slopes high above the river and where Rennie's lovely stone bridges and aqueducts fittingly announce the approach to Bath.
Properly advertised and properly handled by those who are keen to do it, the Kennet and Avon could indeed prove a godsend to those who wish to have, and who are entitled to have, that kind of holiday where they can be quiet and restful, and not least important in these days, able to see and contemplate beautiful things.
In company with hon. Members from both sides of the House, and by the courtesy of the British Transport Commission, I reviewed parts of the canal between Hungerford and Reading the other day, and I was greatly impressed by the beauty and pleasure potentialities, quite apart from the commercial aspect on which I have no doubt other hon. Members will be speaking. I ask the Minister to use his influence with the British Transport Commission to get it to open once again the stretch between Hungerford and Reading. It would be a most important and useful contribution. It would show the Bowes Committee what in fact could be done if only this canal were given the chance. Indeed, the same would be shown by many of the others.
Let us consider the proposals in the Bill. The B.T.C. is saying that we have neglected our duty—"We propose to create a watery ditch. Confirm us in our neglect and give us leave to come back in five years time and say what we would do with this ditch." The B.T.C. and its

predecessors—and in all fairness to the Commission it is mostly its predecessors—have inflicted serious loss on canal users. Although hon. Members may be talking about the actual details of what has happened in the courts, I think that it is relevant to point out that damages and costs of between £20,000 and £30,000 have been paid in the last few years. If that money had been spent on keeping the canal in order years ago it would not have been necessary to have paid that and people would have been able to enjoy the canal and trade on it today.
The provisions of Clause 14 go far beyond the protection which the Commission is entitled to expect. The Clause authorises the closure of the navigation. However objectionable, the Bowes Committee's existence now makes the Clause, to my mind, quite improper in a Private Bill. The Kennet and Avon has become a part of a much larger question of the use of canals in general. Such a piecemeal suggestion as this is today is, I think, to be considered quite out of court. Other Clauses give to the Transport Commission immunity from legal claims. I did not propose to comment upon this or on the period of freedom that the Commission should have—I prefer to leave that to the discretion of the Committee upstairs; but I do stress the need not to close the canal beyond, at any rate—

Mr. H. Hynd: In the interests of accuracy, does not Clause 14 suggest the possibility of the canal being transferred to "any authority body or person" who may want to run it, and not necessarily the closure of the canal? If the Transport Commission has no use for the canal, I do not see why it should be pressed to continue to spend money on it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: If the hon. Member reads the Clause carefully, he will see that the position is not quite like that. The whole idea behind the Clause is set out in subsection (1, a)
The extinguishment of rights to navigate the Kennet waterways or any part or parts thereof.

Mr. Hynd: Read paragraph (b).

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Subsection (1, b) states:
If so determined the transfer of the Kennet waterways or any part or parts thereof to any authority body or person named in the scheme.


But at that time there may be no body which is willing to undertake the job. The neglect has been so great that unless a substantial sum is forthcoming from the Treasury or from the appropriate quarter, one could hardly expect any private body of persons to take over a canal which had been so sadly neglected. As the hon. Member knows, we hope that as a result of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry another public body will, perhaps, have the chance to put matters right where the Transport Commission and others have gone wrong.

Mr. Hynd: Do I understand the argument to be that, in view of the picturesque nature of the canal and its possible use for boating, to which the hon. Member referred, the Commission should be compelled to continue the expense for those purposes?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Oh, no. I said that other hon. Members would be dealing with the economic side of the proposition. I cannot possibly cover all aspects of the canal in one speech and am confining myself to one or two aspects only. I have almost finished and the hon. Member will, no doubt, hear more about the other aspects shortly.
I should very much like my right hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to press the Commission to get the eastern end of the canal into use again. I hope he will manage to do this. I remind the House that more than 80,000 people signed the petition, which was brought into my right hon. Friend's office in a canoe. [HON. MEMBERS: "In a what?"] The canoe was carried up the steps of his office, but I believe it could not quite get through the door; at any rate, it was brought up to his office.
Those 80,000 people are only a small part of the great number who are interested in the future of this waterway, and they are only a tiny microcosm of all those who are interested and are watching hopefully to see what emerges from this debate tonight. I should like it to go forward from this House that we like to protect their heritage, which is, after all, the national heritage. I should like it to be brought home to the Government and to the Commission that we intend to see that rehabilitation, and not closure, is in future to be the order of the day.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Sir Robert Grimston: By speaking now, would I be regarded as seconding both Instructions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is the Motion for the first of the two Instructions that is being put at the moment.

Sir R. Grimston: I wish to speak more particularly to the second Instruction.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: I beg to second the Motion.
I little expected when I came in to the debate that I should be in the honoured position of seconding the Motion for the first Instruction. I whole-heartily support both the first and second Instructions, although not for the same reasons as the majority of their supporters would support them. I suggest that in supporting the first and second Instructions, there should be two conditions.
Although I have not been a resident of the neighbourhood through which the Kennet and Avon Canal passes, all parts of these islands have heard a great deal about its beauty and the pleasure that it gives to the majority of people living in its area. It is, therefore a cause worthy of our support, but I support it for another reason than its amenity value to the residents in the area of the canal.
This is where the delicacy of my position will be revealed. In and around Nottingham, we have had experience of canals being closed. The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) mentioned that the Bill contains the proposal to close a short stretch of canal in the city of Nottingham, and to facilitate its closing, apart from other expenses, the cost to the Nottingham Corporation will be about £93,000. But that is not the only section of canal to be closed in the Nottingham area; other canals are being closed.
Anyone who had smelt those other canals on a summer's day would understand why I, living nowhere near the Kennet and Avon Canal, come here to second the Motion to prevent the closing of this beautiful canal. A tremendous responsibility is placed upon any local


authority when one of these canals is closed, and it is right that attention should be directed to this aspect.
I am quite in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) in his suggestion that it would be unfair and wrong to impose the burden of expense upon the Transport Commission. I am quite sure that the Commission's finances, which are often discussed in this House, would not bear the tremendous expense of keeping the canals open. It is a responsibility which ought to be faced by the Government. While it may be necessary to close our canals in Nottingham, I am quite sure that fit could not be argued that it is necessary to close the Kennet. But if they do that, it means tremendous financial responsibility on the local authorities and a perpetual nuisance to the people living there.
Thirdly, to keep the canals open will mean such a bill to the Commission that unless the Government step in and accept some responsibility for these conditions the Government's neglect will be far greater than we could ever put at the door of the previous owners, though I agree that the previous owners also neglected the canals. If the Government do not do something to meet the situation, we shall be justified in blaming them and complaining that they are neglecting still further this nasty situation which arises when we close canals in and around big cities.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I support these Instructions. I have been interested in the Kennet and Avon Canal for many years. One of the first public meetings I attended was one in Devizes, in 1927, when my father, Sir Percy Hurd, then Member for Devizes, was in the chair. It was a full meeting to discuss the proposal of the Great Western Railway to abandon the Kennet and Avon Canal. In the end, the railway company decided that there was so much opposition and that so much compensation would have to be paid if it proceeded with its intention to abandon the canal, that it dropped the proposal. Ever since then, the Great Western Railway and now the British Transport Commission have neglected essential repairs to the canal and made it impossible for traffic to pass,

and successive Ministers of Transport in the Labour Government and in the present Government have turned a blind eye to the failure of the Transport Commission to carry out the obligation placed upon it by Parliament.
Obviously, the railway company and, more recently, the Transport Commission have taken the view that the less use is made of the canal the smaller the compensation claims if they succeeded in their purpose to obtain the authority of Parliament to abandon navigation on the Kennet and Avon Canal. When traffic has sought to flow it has been discouraged. Firms who have asked about the possibility of using the canal and who have sought tenders for the alternative costs of carrying their goods by water, rail or road from London to Reading and Newbury in my constituency or from Bristol to Newbury and Reading, have been told, "We would not recommend you to use the canal." But the canal still exists and, as late as 1941, sections of it were navigable for quite useful commercial-size craft which can carry 50 tons, with a length of 69 feet, a beam of 14 feet and a draught of 2 ft. 9 ins. Fifty tons do not sound very much, but if the draught were a little more than 3 ft. these craft would carry considerably more.
The chief engineer responsible for the waterways reckoned in 1941 that it would cost £20,000 to put the Kennet and Avon Canal into navigable condition for boats with a draught of up to 3 ft. 6 ins. and then cost £5,000 a year on maintenance, that is, on keeping the lock gates in order, and so on. There is the liability that Parliament placed on the Transport Commission. The Commission has neglected that responsibility, and successive Ministers have not kept it up to the mark.
I should like to give just one example of the discouragement given to firms who have inquired about using the canal. About ten years ago a firm in my constituency inquired about the conveyance of 50 tons of cocoa beans a month to a cocoa mill, from Bristol and Theale, but the use of the canal was not encouraged. Advantageous rates were offered if other means of transport were used and the traffic eventually passed by road.

Mr. Ernest Davies: When was this?

Mr. Hurd: In 1946–47.

Mr. Davies: Before nationalisation.

Mr. Hurd: I am not arguing about nationalisation. I am giving the facts.
The railway authority wanted to be able to say, as the Transport Commission says today, that there was no natural flow of traffic across the South of England and then come to Parliament with a request to abandon the canal with the least possible liability to compensation.
Anyone who has to use the Bath Road, as I do every weekend, and every day when the House is in recess, knows that there is an endless flow of traffic east and west and west and east. It is heavy traffic, such as timber, road stone, grain, coal, fertilisers and wood pulp which could more conveniently be taken by water than by road. There is, therefore, a heavy natural flow of traffic across the South of England and it grows heavier month by month.
We are looking to the committee of inquiry which has been set up to tell us whether it is practicable and economical to modernise this waterway to take some of the load off the roads. It would be a great boon to us in the South of England if that could be done. This is an independent committee, an unprejudiced committee, and, I would say, a very competent committee. It will take evidence from knowledgeable people here and I hope it will also draw on continental experience. We have passed out of the age of the pick and shovel, which has been the attitude of mind of the Great Western Railway and of the Transport Commission so far towards this canal, and there are more modern ways of improving the commercial possibilities of the waterway.
I hope that this competent committee set up by the Minister will go fully into all these technical matters, and will let Parliament know its findings and recommendations quickly. There is a prospect of considerable commercial traffic. Since this matter was first raised, and we heard that the Transport Commission proposed to abandon the canal, it is remarkable how many possibilities of commercial traffic using this waterway have appeared.
For instance, we hear that the Mendip stone quarries, in Somerset, transport 200,000 tons of road aggregate a year west from Somerset to Reading and east. This is the kind of traffic that ought to be

on a waterway and not on a road. I have in my constituency a large floor cloth mill which would favourably consider bringing 10,000 tons a year of wood pulp from the London docks, where it comes in from Scandinavia and can be transferred direct to barges and brought straight up the Thames to Reading, and then on to the Kennet and Avon Canal into its works at Thatcham. There is also a possibility of reviving timber carrying by water and all that other heavy, cumbersome traffic which we do not want on our roads because within the next few years they are unlikely to be in a fit state to carry it.
The canal is very beautiful, as I saw when I was down there on Saturday afternoon, and many people used to enjoy pleasure boating on it. There are possibilities for cruises which one or two firms in Newbury want to run again. These were much appreciated and would attract business again this summer if the canal could be used for this purpose. So there is a great deal to be said for the pleasure aspects of the canal, to which my hon. Friend referred. Then there is the fishing aspect, which is important. Many of my constituents are keen coarse fishermen.
Again, the bathing aspect is important. There are some good bathing places on the canal. However, as long as it is in its present condition, the public is denied these proper and natural rights of enjoyment. The lock gates have been neglected. In some cases hooligans have been allowed to remove essential fittings so that these cannot be opened. As a result, the locks silt up with mud and people do not want to bathe there, and because weed grows the fishing is not as good as it could be.
If only some quite minor repairs were done, I believe that the traffic passing through, even the small motor boat traffic, would help to keep the canal clear and would indeed lighten the task of the Transport Commission in carrying out the obligations which I hope this House will put upon it by means of this Instruction tonight.
I have in mind particularly the ease with which the section on each side of Newbury—east of Newbury to Thatcham and west of Newbury to Kintbury—could be opened up. It is only a matter of


replacing a few posts here and there and of dredging out some of the mud which ought never to have been allowed to accumulate. I join with my hon. Friends in urging the Minister of Transport to see whether it is not possible for the Transport Commission to make the canal useful for light craft from Reading, where it joins the Thames, and open up a stretch of water to a much wider public interested in boating, from Reading right up to Hungerford, which is a very beautiful stretch.
I believe that that would be the most economical way for the Transport Commission to carry out the Instruction and the obligations which I hope this House will place upon it; that is to say, by means of minor work like clearing away the mud where the canal is badly silted up. We should find the canal reviving without any heavy cost.
There is another point arising on the second Instruction. The Berkshire County Council, the Hungerford Rural District Council, the Newbury Town Council and the Newbury Rural District Council have all petitioned against this Bill of the Transport Commission. They have done it on practical grounds. They are worried as to what obligations and liabilities are to be placed upon them if the Commission has its way and the Kennet and Avon Canal is closed. It is necessary to prevent the canal falling into worse disrepair while the Minister's committee of inquiry is doing its work, and I hope that the Commission will now be as co-operative and as helpful as possible in carrying out the minor repairs to which I have referred; I mean the replacement of fittings where they have been removed or are broken and the clearing away of the mud.
It is not only a matter of maintaining the canal in its present condition. It is a matter of carrying out the routine maintenance work which the Transport Commission has failed to do in recent years. We are not asking it to fulfil its statutory obligation to keep the canal in full navigable order throughout, but we are asking the Commission to do what is necessary to allow part of the canal to be used this summer, and, I hope, a wider stretch next year.
A few hundred pounds spent sensibly on routine maintenance will regain for the Commission some of the good will which

it lost by its restrictive and unhelpful attitude while it has been preparing the way for this Bill. The Commission will not get what it set out to get by this Bill, and I suggest that it should now turn over a new leaf and be more co-operative in trying to work with the local people to get the canal revived at the least possible cost and to get some life into it again.
The Berkshire County Council and the other local authorities consider that the proposed Instruction, which they have, of course, seen on the Order Paper, does not go far enough, and I should like to quote a few sentences from a letter which I have received from the Clerk to the Berkshire County Council, which will make its point of view clear:
In some parts of the canal the condition which now exists is unsatisfactory, and it would be undesirable to tie any protective provisions to the present position. One illustration will make clear what I have in mind. The main surface water drain for Hungerford High Street at present discharges into the canal by means of a large 2 ft. diameter culvert.
Some twelve months ago, it was discovered that the effective size of this culvert had been reduced to about four inches as the silting up of the canal at Hungerford had almost completely covered the mouth of the pipe. This silting up arose through the neglect of the Commission to dredge the canal and would never have arisen if the canal had been kept navigable.
The County Council's remedy was, in the last resort, to enforce the duty to keep the canal navigable, which would have consequentially resulted in dredging being carried out. Such an action will not be open to the county council during the interim period if the Bill is passed into law in its present form.
The important matter is to secure that there is no deterioration in the capacity of the waterway to perform the same functions as those of which they were capable, but in many cases not actually performing, before the passing of the Bill.
It is the capacity of the canal to serve its purposes as a drainage way that is the concern of the local authorities at the moment. I very much hope that the Minister will have that point in mind and that the Select Committee will have it in mind. It is not only the present state of repair of the canal, but its capacity to fulfil its proper functions that is important. That is what we have to watch. It has deteriorated and may become a public menace in our part of the country. It is with those views that I most heartily support the Instructions.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The closing sentences of the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) reminded us that when these canals were fashioned in the 18th century, those who constructed them were placed under certain duties to the inhabitants of the country through which the canals passed. Sometimes they had to accept drainage. At other places they had to supply water, and, of course, the construction of the waterway altered the natural drainage of the area through which the canal passed. On occasion, other duties were placed upon them and the canals became a very important part of the organised social life of the areas through which they passed.
I do not feel as angry with the British Transport Commission as did the hon. Member for Newbury. I think that the Commission took over a dud show. My attitude to the Bill and the failure of the owners of the Kennet-Avon Canal to perform their duties would have been very different if we had still had the Great Western Railway in charge. Over a long period of years, for the rather sinister purposes mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury, the Great Western Railway Company allowed the canal to get into a condition where the company hoped that it would be able to abandon it without very much trouble to itself.
As in the case of Nottingham, the local authorities might very well have been landed with a substantial scale of costs which Nottingham now has to discharge for closing a couple of miles. No less than £93,000 will fall on the ratepayers of Nottingham because of past failures of the owners of canals to keep them in the condition in which Parliament said they were to be kept, and they have failed to discharge the other duties that have fallen upon them.
What has happened in this case? Last year an action was brought in the High Court to compel the British Transport Commission, as the successors to the people to whom Parliament granted the privilege of constructing the canal, to keep the waterway open and to allow certain people, who had vessels which they wanted to put on the canal, opportunities for navigating it.
In the High Court it was held, as must have been obvious from the first that it would be, that the British Transport Com-

mission was failing in its duty, and damages were awarded. And the effort to get a mandamus against the canal owners to keep the canal navigable was, I understand, disposed of by a promise by the Commission that it would come to Parliament this year and get relieved of its responsibilities during the current Parliamentary Session. Of course, the Commission could put up such a proposition to the judge and he could even believe that the Commission could discharge it. But after all, this House has to be consulted before such legislation can be passed.
I shall be frank about this, and say that I think that for a limited time the Commission should be relieved of the liability to make the whole of the canal navigable. In the first place, I believe that it would be an impossible task for the Commission to undertake. It is not the fault of the Commission. Had the old Great Western Railway Company been concerned I should have felt no such sympathy. I should have considered that that company deserved all it got, both from this House and from the courts. I think the Commission should be given this relief from its liability. I regret to note the form of Clause 14. That Clause is a clear indication that it is intended to close down the canal.
I wish to say how courteously I was received when I approached the chairman of the Commission on the matter. I have had two or three interviews with him, and the reception was very different this year from the reception by the Commission's officials last year when we were dealing with the Haddiscoe Cut. Even these great corporations can learn manners, and the improvement indicates that I have not lost all the skill I acquired as a schoolmaster.
This waterway is exceptionally important, because it is one of the ways in which the English Channel could be bypassed in time of war. If one could get into Avonmouth—by no means an easy task in time of war, but sometimes rather easier than getting into the mouth of the Thames—then this canal, if open, would provide a way for traffic right through to the mouth of the Thames. From that point of view, therefore, this is a very important waterway.
I went to see a couple of films, shown by a petrol company, depicting the deplorable state of the roads, and after


the film had been shown one of the directors of the company said to me, "What do you think of the films?" I said, "They greatly impressed me." He said, "I was sure they would." "Yes," I said, "Nearly all the traffic that was shown ought never to have been on the roads at all." What was said by the hon. Member for Newbury about traffic on the Bath Road and other roads in the South of England reminds us that a great deal of this heavy traffic, which goes along pounding the roads to pieces and making them very expensive to maintain, could far better be conveyed either by the railways or the canals. It is certain that the neglect of our canal system is one of the reasons why we have such very heavy traffic on the roads.
A gentleman who is very interested in this matter pointed out to me that we can see the difference between a country which has no canals and a country which has if we study the conditions in Italy and France. In France traffic can move swiftly along the roads, because much of the heavy traffic, which in this country and in Italy would be on the roads, is carried on the canals. Those of us who, during the World Wars, saw the use which can be made of the French system of canals for the transport of heavy goods, must realise the extent to which this country is handicapped.
I hope that the Committee upstairs will not regard itself, because of the Instructions, as limited in its constructive efforts to improve the Bill. I submit. that this House is not instructing the Committee upstairs not to go beyond the requirements of the second Instruction, but is saying that that is the minimum, and that it is a concession which is made—if it is made—because the House recognises that the Commission is not entirely responsible for the difficulties which confront it and us.
From what I have seen and heard in my investigations, I believe that the commercial use of this waterway has not been properly appreciated during the past thirty or forty years. Road material, fertilisers for farms, and all sorts of fairly heavy and bulky stuff which does not need to be conveyed so quickly if it can be conveyed certainly along well-defined routes, ought to be travelling along this canal, if its route lies anywhere in this part of the country.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said about the beauties of this canal and the engineering of some of the canal works. After all, Rennie's bridges are not to be treated as things which can be despised in this age when people think that if they can design a purely rectangular concrete bridge, they have really achieved something useful. The constructors of the canals managed to combine artistic beauty with strict utilitarianism, and the bridges of Rennie over this canal, and of Telford over other canals, are among our great constructive engineering enterprises and heritages. To be seen properly they should be seen from the waterway and not from a motor car passing over them.
I do not want to stress too much the pleasure aspect of this matter but, as one who spends his summer holidays on the Thames. I know there is a very substantial demand for access to these waterways for pleasure purposes. That is not to be regarded with hostility; nobody says that we should not have a good railway to Brighton because people want to go to Brighton for pleasure. The railways do a good deal to provide pleasure traffic. I cannot see why the other means of transport in the country should not similarly, and with due proportion, be considered for the same sort of thing.
The committee which the right hon. Gentleman has appointed will examine the whole of this project. It might be better that the canals should be under some other authority than the British Transport Commission. I am not advocating that until I have seen what the Committee makes of the proposals. The canal companies now vested in the British Transport Commission have to discharge some duties which are not normally the function of a transport commission, and there may have to be some sorting out in that respect. I know the great interest which the Minister takes in this project, and I sincerely hope that, as the result of the committee he has appointed, the House will get guidance on the way in which, in the circumstances of our time, the canals can discharge their original social purposes and such other purposes as the advances which take place all around us may enable them to undertake.
I hope that the two Instructions will be passed and that the Committee will give very careful consideration to the Part of the Bill which is concerned with the canal system.

9.3 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I have very little to add to what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just said, and with which I entirely agree.
This canal passes through my constituency. When it was first mooted that the British Transport Commission was to seek powers to abandon the canal I received many protests, some on commercial grounds, but a great many on amenity grounds. I was surprised to learn that literally thousands of people enjoy the canal for fishing and many other purposes. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not stress it, that many people can get rest and relaxation which they would not get if the canal were entirely abandoned is a most important aspect.
That is not a matter for a transport commission. It is not one of the things for which the canals were originally constructed or for the maintenance of which one should look to a transport organisation. That is one reason why I welcome the setting up of a committee which, with its very broad terms of reference, may give us guidance on the future of the canals from the economy and amenity angles.
Referring particularly to the second Instruction, we were, I think, faced with the problem of what was to be done in the meantime. What is fair both to the public and to the Transport Commission is that the same Instruction should go to the Committee to see that the canal is not allowed to deteriorate further—that is the Instruction—coupled with some provision to secure its enforcement. It is because I believe that that is fair to both that I very much hope the House will unanimously agree that the Instruction should go forward.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I support all the arguments put forward in favour of the two Instructions. I think that the Kennet and Avon Canal is a test case. The British Transport Commission has been criticised in many places by

thousands of people, but we must remember that it took over a rather tough job when it took over this canal. We on this side of the House often argue in relation to nationalisation and other things that people are not entitled to skim the cream and to leave the country with the skimmed milk. Here I do not think that the Transport Commission is entitled to take over a vast canal organisation, to keep those parts that are lucrative and not to keep in proper order those canals which are not quite so profitable.
At this stage, I should like to pay a tribute to the officials who enabled some of us to have a look at quite a long stretch of the canal as recently as Wednesday last. We had an opportunity of seeing it at many points, we examined its condition technically, and so on, and we had with us some extraordinarily good guides who answered literally hundreds of questions. But in my opinion this canal can never again carry the weight of commercial traffic from its beginning to its furthest extremity. I do not think that any hon. Member would suggest that the Transport Commission should be called upon to make the canal navigable from its source right to the Thames, or from the Thames right to the extreme point to which it extends—Devizes, I think.
What could be done is that it could be opened for any available traffic offered to it. During our trip we learned that in the Victorian era, and since, farmers sent their goods along the canal to London, and certain coalfields, which are not now available, sent coal. Gravel, sand, and the like also found their way along the canal. It was quite a lucrative business. It is now not quite the same. Farmers' merchandise—especially perishable goods—is taken quickly by road overnight.
I do not want to dwell on what might be called the industrial side of the canal, but on its amenities. When the Transport Commission first suggested closing 771 miles of inland waterways there was a howl of indignation throughout the length and breadth of the country. A meeting was held at the House of Commons, attended by 183 people representing over 30 different organisations—county councils, urban district councils, and so forth. For myself, I received—and still have in the House—about 85,000 signatures of


men all over the country who are protesting against the idea that the canal should be closed. Those signatures came from anglers—men of good intent.
Not many minutes ago—as time goes in this House—we heard arguments about the merits or demerits of a certain trade union within, the framework of the Bill. I want to speak for a moment or two about the man who has had all his trade union troubles settled and finds himself peaceably at work with his foreman. We have heard the argument about the foreman who did not get on and did not get the job he wanted. I suggest to the Minister, who is now removed from the Ministry of Labour, where he dealt with industrial troubles, that the way to get industrial peace is to see to it that the working men—and there are more of them than of the other sort, who are in the minority—shall have all the amenities they are entitled to get.
I speak particularly for and on behalf of the three million men in this country who go angling. It may be said that there are plenty of rivers and other places for them, but that is just nonsense. Every man driven from the canalside is a menace to those who already go to the overcrowded riversides. More and more men today go angling, because there are more and more people seeking peace and relaxation in that way. [Laughter.] I say that quite seriously. This is not a laughing matter; it is not a matter of conjecture or joke.
I happen to deal, in a rather big organisation, with a psychological type of work, affecting men's minds. Last Sunday morning, alongside the Weaver Canal—a very fine canal, kept in good condition, because it pays to keep it like that—there were 360 men from one club, chatting and bantering, questioning and answering one another, but all doing one thing, all getting one thing—relaxation. When they returned to work on Monday morning—many of them steel workers—they were better men than they would have been if that amenity had not been available to them.
I do not want to detain the House, but this is a very important matter. There is attached to angling in this country quite a flourishing dollar earning trade, and the more men who do not buy angling equipment the less call there will be upon

that fine industry, and the export trade and dollar earning they create will not be so readily available as it is now. I want particularly to stress that point of view.
Last Wednesday, I saw some splendid stretches of water and some very good locks. It appeared to me that if, of each pair of locks, one at least worked, if one went they would be held together by poverty, old age, silt, and so on. I know that to put the Kennett and Avon Canal into the condition some Members would wish to have it would be a tremendous job and would cost a great deal of money. But the reasonable thing could be done, namely, to make it possible to use the canal for light shallow draught barges and for pleasure purposes. For once in a way, I think for the first time in history, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, who said that he was not so much concerned with amenity value. There is tremendous amenity value available in our canals.
I could talk for a long time of the people I met last Wednesday, public authorities making electricity, private owners deriving electricity, others getting drinking water for cattle, sheep dips, and all the rest of it. I ask the Minister to use the good influence of this Committee and to see to it that, while this Bill envisages a magnitude of problems which will cost millions upon millions of pounds to solve, as many canals as possible are kept for the amenities of these many humble, decent-minded folk, because by so doing he will earn the respect of some very decent people.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: In supporting these Instructions, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and those of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who expressed their appreciation of the co-operation of the British Transport Commission in the joint talks in which I was privileged to share with them.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said that this Bill was a test case. I do not know exactly what construction to put upon his words, but I hope that it will be regarded as a test case in this sense—that the House, by giving Instructions to delete Clause 14, are making it quite clear that they are not prepared in advance of the findings of my right hon. Friend's Committee to


condemn any canal to extinction. The essential justification, in my view, for instructing the Committee to delete Clause 14 is that the Clause anticipates the detailed findings and judgment which we hope will be forthcoming from the Committee set up by my right hon. Friend.
It would be farcical for the Commission to set about framing a scheme dealing with this stretch of waterway when we know well that a committee has been set up to consider the future of all waterways. As the right hon. Member for South Shields said, when that report is forthcoming it may well be found that the British Transport Commission is not the right body to carry the responsibility for the canals. It is not only a question whether certain functions are outside the normal purview of the Commission—that may well be the case—but it is also possible that if the canals are to play their proper rôle in the future they ought not to be run by the same people as those who run the railways, thus stifling the opportunity for competition which would result if the canals were run by someone else.
Many others who are directly affected by the decision on the future of the Kennet and Avon Canal are watching the outcome of the Bill. I have here a letter from the town clerk of Aylesbury expressing concern for the sake of the Aylesbury branch of the Grand Union Canal and hoping that Parliament, by giving the Instructions it is suggested should be given to the Committee, will make it plain that they are not prepared to seal the doom of any waterway until such time as the Report and findings of the Committee are forthcoming.
Many people are affected and are anxious to see steps taken either to make these canals navigable or to put them on a satisfactory basis. I hope that my right hon. Friend will expedite the Committee's findings as far as is reasonably possible and subsequently will expedite his consideration of them.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I will not detain the House for more than a moment, but I want to follow a point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who referred to the Committee which is now sitting. I am afraid that we are called upon to reach a decision without having the evidence.

That will be forthcoming when the Committee which the Minister has appointed to go into the whole question of the canals in this country has reached a decision and reported to the House. It would be far wiser if Clause 14 were not passed until we had the Committee's report.
We can say that from 1790 to 1840 was the canal, the waterways, period. After that came the development of the railways. Those who took over the canals took over obligations as well as advantages, and the feeling today is that they are trying by this method to evade the obligations which they carried years ago. It is a subtle method of getting out of the obligations gradually, and I do not think it should be used. We should examine the position properly and allow the Committee which is now sitting to go into the details.
If what has been said is correct, it might be possible to use the waterways for heavy traffic diverted from the roads. If that is so, well and good. It may be that the amenities will appeal to some people and that we ought to use the canal for those amenities. That can be considered, but we cannot consider it in a Bill of the character of that before us tonight. It can only be considered by the Committee set up by the Minister for that specific purpose.
Local authorities, at their conference in 1951, decided to ask the Minister for a committee for the purpose of examining the whole question of the canals of the country. We now have to wait for the decision of the Committee. It has to discuss the question of the abandonment of the canal. If the canal is abandoned great responsibilities will rest upon someone to put the waterway into good condition. It may have to be drained and turned into a road, or it may be used for some other purpose. Whose is that responsibility to be? Must the local authorities along the canalside carry responsibility for draining and filling in the canal? If so, we shall be taking away responsibility from the Commission or any other canal owners and placing it on the ratepayers of local authorities, and I do not think that should be done.
There are so many things which the Committee will have to examine that it


would be wise for this House not to agree to Clause 14. I do not know whether this canal is necessary or not. If it is necessary I should certainly vote for it to remain in operation. It it is unnecessary I should certainly vote for its abandonment. I cannot come to a decision on whether it is necessary or unnecessary until we have full information. We can only get full information when the Committee has reported to the Minister. I suggest we should wait until that report is made before coming to a decision, not only on this canal, but on the whole of the canals of the country.
I have seen canals which have been abandoned and the water allowed to remain there. Weeds grow up and they become disease-breeding areas. If we are to allow canals to remain in that state, disease will be rife in those areas. This is a matter which should be planned and dealt with in a proper way and that can only be done after we have had the report of the Committee.

9.22 p.m.

Commander Agnew: Enough has been said in this debate to show that it would be a very bad precedent to follow if this Bill were to leave the Floor of this House without the two Instructions which have been set down being passed.
Hon. Members through whose constituencies the Kennet and Avon Canal flows are the best judges of the commercial potentiality of the canal.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Why?

Commander Agnew: I think the answer is that they have a better chance of knowing the industrial conditions in their constituencies than do other hon. Members.
I wish to add a word about amenities. I was very impressed by what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about the value of the amenity question to expanding and developing the industrial activity of this country and to people indulging in all sorts of activities in which they used not to indulge.
There flows through my constituency not the River Avon which gives its name to the Kennet and Avon Canal, but another River Avon—Shakespeare's Avon—which, at the moment, is in the course of being made navigable right up

to Evesham, above Tewkesbury. Already, a growing number of people value the amenity of that waterway. The fact that that amenity has been created has in itself created a demand for facilities, as soon as they may be made available, for people to go down the Severn River and look into one of the southern canal systems, such as the Kennet and Avon Canal could be.
The creation of that demand again gives rise to another one which is for further development of those light industries which build yachts, cruisers, or even small boats—whatever we like to call them—in ever increasing numbers, many of which are owned by working people in the Midland towns who go to them for the weekend and take great pleasure in them.
I believe that those industries could be developed and, if ever there came a state of national emergency, we should have the small teams of craftsmen who could build, as they did in the last war, just the kind of boats which were so valuable for our light coastal forces. If we take the long view and say that we ought to wait until the new inquiry has reported before allowing the Transport Commission to close the Kennet and Avon Canal, we shall be acting in every way to the national advantage.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: The question of setting up a committee only occurs after the Commission has taken the decision that the canal is no longer valuable to it as a waterway. Whenever someone does not want to do something, it is always convenient to set up a committee, and that is the issue with which we are now faced. This matter of the Kennet Canal and many other canals has been known to local authorities for a long time. I am not quarrelling with their amenity value. But the Transport Commission are concerned with the operation of navigable waterways and of transport. There are many hon. Members on the other side of the House who want to limit the Commission severely in its opreation of transport. Here is a case where the Commission says that from the transport point of view the canal is no longer navigable and it wants to be rid of the responsibility.
If this were a private company it would merely go into liquidation. The Commission is being blackmailed on this particular occasion because, being the Transport


Commission, it cannot go into liquidation. I think that this matter has been on the boards long enough for the local authorities concerned, the county councils, county borough councils and others, to come to the conclusion on whether or not this and many other canals are of value to them as amenities as distinct from their value as transport undertakings. The Transport Commission has made out a perfectly good case.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The issue was that the British Transport Commission should not necessarily act as carriers on the canal but should make it fit for use so that carriers could carry on it.

Mr. Pargiter: If the Transport Commission were a private company no one would bother to ask that question. It would go into liquidation and say, "We have no use for this canal. We are no longer prepared to operate it," and would do nothing about it. Many canals have gone into disuse under private enterprise, about which hon. Members opposite have raised no question. It is only because it happens to be the Commission that somebody says it should put the canal in navigable condition.
The issue here is whether we require a public body to do something which a private body would not be required to do. The whole issue hinges on that. It seems to me that the Transport Commission is entitled to bring this matter to a head and to say, "From our point of view, we no longer want this canal. We recognise that certain obligations were entered into. We are prepared to recognise our obligations within the capital commitments of that part of the undertaking, and we are not prepared to meet, at the expense of the transport system as a whole, any additional cost which might be incurred in connection with this waterway." If that were accepted, it would not need a committee to deal with it. It simply means that the local authorities and the Commission could have got together, had the local authorities decided to do so, to settle the future of the canal.
From the point of view of the light industries, such as boatbuilding, which have been referred to, I appreciate that this waterway is of value. It has considerable amenity value. It also has considerable drainage value, which is more important than boating value or anything

else. It is an important waterway from the viewpoint of the drainage of the area, but that is not the responsibility of the Commission. The fact that ipso facto it is being used as a navigable waterway is another matter.

Mr. Ede: Does my hon. Friend not realise that Parliament placed drainage responsibilities on the constructors of the canal?

Mr. Pargiter: Parliament placed those responsibilities on the constructors of the canal and upon those who operated it afterwards.
I am prepared to say that any company which operated this canal and which went into voluntary liquidation because it no longer wanted the canal would not have been held up to blackmail, as the Commission can be held up because it happens to be an authority in respect of other works than this waterway.
If the question is kept to the narrow issue of the Clause—the responsibility of the Commission for this waterway and the capital commitments—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: rose—

Mr. Pargiter: I cannot give way—in respect of this waterway and this particular responsibility—there can be no question that it would have to handle the responsibility; but what is sought to be done is to pin on the nation as a whole a responsibility for one company on the narrow issue of one waterway.
I suggest that it is better to let the Commission have the Clause. The Bill can then go into Committee and the bodies concerned can come to terms upon the future of the waterway. I am certain that the local authorities would be much more amenable to reason on the future of this waterway as an amenity if the House followed that course.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: This has been a calm and peaceful debate, almost as calm and peaceful as the waterways we are discussing. Before the Minister intervenes, there are one or two points I should like to put to him, but first I should like to deal briefly with the general subject which the House has been discussing.
Tonight, the House has shown that we all regret the past neglect of the canals. We are not here tonight to apportion blame. Clearly, the canals have been neglected over a long period, under different ownership, and what the Commission inherited when it was set up was once described as "a pretty poor bag of assets." The House has also made clear its view that we all desire to preserve the amenities of these waterways. The question which arises from the closing of the Kennet and Avon Canal is, who shall be responsible for those canals which can no longer be operated economically?
The Board of Survey divided the canals into three categories. First, there were those which were commercially economic and which it was proposed should continue. On these, the Commission has already announced a programme of £5½ million capital expenditure. The Commission, therefore, is no longer neglecting those canals which it considers suitable for transport and which should continue to be used. The second category of canals—those which are not considered to be worth having large sums spent upon them at present—are being kept in operation, whereas those with which we are concerned tonight—in particular we have been discussing the Kennet and Avon—are those which are accepted as not being suitable for commercial navigation.
We are concerned about what should happen to the 700 miles or so of canals and whether they should be kept open for amenity purposes and, above all, who should be the responsible body for seeing that they are maintained for the purposes for which they are suitable.
Clause 14 of the Bill is superseded by the Bowes Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways. I understand that the Bill was drafted before the Minister had decided to set up that Committee to inquire into the future of the canals. It is significant that among its terms of reference is the following:
To consider the future administration of and financial arrangement for such inland waterways as cannot be maintained economically for transport purposes.
In my view, that covers quite definitely the Kennet and Avon Canal.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the municipal authorities asked the Minister of Transport to appoint such a committee in 1951?

Mr. Davies: That may well be, though I was not aware of it. It may be that this Committee was not altogether necessary, because I believe that the Government have already a large amount of detailed information from previous inquiries on which they might have been able to make a decision on policy. But that is a matter which we are not here to discuss tonight.
It is not so easy to bring the Kennet and Avon Canal into navigable condition. Some hon. Members, for quite understandable reasons, have rather glossed over the difficulties which would confront the Commission in bringing the canal back into the condition in which they would like to see it. The capital expenditure would be very considerable, and the House has to take the responsibility of deciding whether that capital expenditure would be justified.
The House has to accept the fact that there is not the commercial traffic available for this canal. I know that one or two hon. Members opposite believe that there is some commercial traffic and that they can produce figures but, as far as I understand, the traffic on this canal has never been great for over 100 years. The highest total carried was 360,000 tons in 1848. The total fell by 1890 to 112,000 tons, and by 1905 it was already down to 64,000 tons. In 1938 it was down to 12,000 tons, and it has never been higher than that since.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: All because of the Great Western Railway Company's neglect.

Mr. Davies: I do not deny that, but we have to be realistic and we have to look at the canal in its present condition. It is not carrying the traffic.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It cannot.

Mr. Davies: No. It cannot. Even if there were traffic available which people would like to put on the canal, we have to decide whether that traffic would be sufficiently great to justify the necessary capital expenditure to get the canal into a suitable condition to carry the traffic. I have considerable doubts about that. I know that the Commission itself sees no prospect of adequate traffic being available even to meet the maintenance expenses. Those expenses would certainly be considerable.
I should like to put one or two points to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is the spokesman for the Commission in the House, the Commission itself being responsible for the Bill. It is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to give the House some indication of what he considers it is reasonable to expect from the Commission.
It will be left to the Committee of Inquiry to decide on the future of the canals or to make recommendations about them. Tonight, however, we must consider the interim period between now and the publication of the report of the Committee and the reaching of decisions on its recommendations. I hope, therefore, that tonight the Minister will give a lead to the House and say what he considers the House is entitled to expect from the Committee about the Kennet and Avon Canal. Personally I think it unreasonable during this period, when the future of the canals are being considered, to expect the British Transport Commission to keep this canal in a reasonable state of maintenance.

Mr. Pargiter: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Commission should keep this canal in the condition it was in when it took it over?

Mr. Davies: I do not know. Since the Commission took the canal over it has probably deteriorated considerably because it had already reached such a state of deterioration that it was not worth while spending money on it. I consider, however, that the Commission should keep the canals in a reasonable state of maintenance. This means that the Commission should keep up the water level, which is vital to any canal which is not filled or completely abandoned. It does not mean that where the locks fall in they should necessarily be replaced by new ones. I do not think it feasible that the Commission should be permitted to spend any large sums on replacements rather than on maintenance.
I know that if the Commission does not do more than maintain the canal on a reasonable basis it will not be open for traffic. I do not think that will be possible, but there are stretches, which we all know and which rightly deserve the praise which has been bestowed upon them tonight, where pleasure-boating and other amenities can easily be preserved without a large expenditure of money.

I believe that the Commission is willing to see that those amenities are preserved, as far as practicable, during the interim period, and I hope that will be the way in which the Minister will suggest to the House that the second Instruction is interpreted.
When I first saw this Instruction it seemed to me to go a little too far and I was somewhat worried as to whether the House, if it decided to pass that Instruction, would not be imposing too great an obligation upon the Commission. It depends on the way that Instruction is interpreted, if it goes through the House, and I would suggest that there the Minister might give the House a little guidance by explaining how he interprets the Instruction, and what he considers should be done by the Commission in that respect.
We look to this Committee to help us to resolve the future of the canals. In future there will have to be a segregation of those which are commercially economic from those which we wish to preserve for other reasons. The other reasons are largely those amenities which we all desire to be available for the leisure time of the community.
I would prefer to see those canals which can be commercially operated retained by the Commission. I favour the Commission retaining the transport section of the canals and I favour the hiving off, the segregation, of the other canals to authorities which should be responsible for maintaining them for amenity and for other purposes. We can all think of such bodies which in certain cases might be suitable—local authorities, river boards and so on. I am not laying down a definite policy, but giving an indication that something along these lines should be the way in which we look for a solution of this problem.
When we created the British Transport Commission, it was created as a transport organisation, and it was given the obligation to operate as a commercial undertaking. It has to pay its way. It may well be that the Government of the day made a mistake in imposing upon it the obligation of maintaining these canals which are not used for transport purposes, and that now the time has come when they should be separated from it.
I trust that the Committee in its deliberations will give consideration to that aspect of the matter. Having said that,


I would suggest to the House that it is quite reasonable that the first Instruction should go to the Committee. As far as the second is concerned, I think it depends largely on the manner in which it is interpreted, and the more reasonable the interpretation which the Minister can give in that respect tonight, the happier I think the House will be in agreeing to the Instruction.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: Those of us who are rather fond of pottering about in boats and that sort of thing have to be rather careful in this debate not to let our hearts rule our heads in a rather charming but not necessarily very practical way. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) quite rightly said that the British Transport Commission has no spokesman in this matter other than myself, and, therefore, it is my duty to try to keep a fair balance in this very good debate and to present some of the facts.
First, may I get out of the way the question of the first Instruction? I think we are all agreed, and it is no fault of the Commission, that it has really been overtaken by events. The Bowes Committee, with its carefully and widely-drawn terms of reference, which certainly include the amenity aspects as well as all the others, has entirely superseded Clause 14, and, therefore, I would certainly recommend that the House should send that Instruction to the Committee. Perhaps I may dispose of that question first.
Then we come to the second Instruction, and here, of course, we are in a greater difficulty. Let me give one figure which rather follows from what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said earlier. The best estimate that can be formed by the experts at the moment—and it must only be approximate, although I do not think it is very far out, and it is rather different from the estimate given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd)—of the cost of making the Kennet and Avon Canal navigable throughout its whole length is no less than £750,000, and the estimate for maintenance is that it would cost roughly about £150,000 per annum. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but I think that the

House should understand the measure of the expense that would be involved in making the whole canal operational and navigable. That is a very heavy charge on the British Transport Commission.
I ought also to say at this stage, for those who, like myself, sometimes feel that we ought to spend a great deal of money on these canals even for amenity purposes, that I should warn the House, as I think this is the only time in the immediate future when we shall be discussing the Commission's affairs, that my estimate is that the deficit under which the British Transport Commission will be labouring at the end of this year may well be of the order of £100 million. That is a very great sum of money, and a Commission facing that kind of deficit can hardly be expected to have too many additional burdens put upon it. I think it is right that that should be said. I am not in any way saying to my hon. Friends that this is an argument for not considering canals on their merits, but I must bear that in mind when any course of action is being pressed upon the Commission which will greatly increase that already very large and alarming deficit.
To come to one or two of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends, I would say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested that certain parts of the canal could be made useful in the meantime. Perhaps I may give just another example. Although I may be corrected by the experts, I think there are forty-three locks on this canal. We cannot imagine, when we start the job of trying to put these locks, or even some of them, into a fully operational condition, what a terrible difficulty it is to know where we are to stop. For example, in 1948, the Commission did start to try to make the stretch of the canal between Reading and Newbury fully navigable. The work went on and cost a great deal more than the Commission thought it would do, and in 1954 the Commission had to admit that the expense was too great, even on that stretch, to put the canal into a condition in which it would be a workable and paying proposition. It is fair to say that the Commission has not completely written off this canal. From time to time it has made attempts to make some use of it, but unfortunately it has found in each case that to do so was not a very practicable proposition.
Other hon. Members have dealt with the broader issue of amenity value. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) was very persuasive on that topic and I agree with him; but I should like to point out that that is entirely within the purview of the Bowes Committee. Bearing in mind the Committee's enormous job, I have asked it to try to submit its Report as soon as possible, because these issues are rather in suspense until we get the Report. I am very grateful for the tributes that many hon. Members have paid to the Committee. It is impartial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) said, and I think it is in a position to draw a fair judgment about these difficult matters.
That brings me to the second Instruction. The hon. Member for Enfield, East clearly put to me that it was my duty to try to say what I felt was the Commission's responsibility in interpreting the Instruction Of course, the terms of the Instruction are pretty tight. It says:
…to ensure that the British Transport Commission allows no further deterioration, to take place.…
I am sure that that is what my hon. Friends want, and I am sure that that is what the Commission wants as far as it is able to get it.
The Bowes Committee has the kind of terms of reference that will enable it to report on all aspects of the topic of canals. I think that the Commission now accepts that it must try to preserve the Kennet and Avon Canal, for example, in its present condition. However, it must be remembered that there are forty-three lock gates on the canal which are in an advanced state of deterioration. How is one to maintain in its present condition a lock gate which is about to fall down? I do not know. Does one continue to prop it up until it falls down, or does one have a new lock gate which will cost a great deal of money?
If my hon. Friends will accept my interpretation, I should feel fully justified in recommending the House to send this Instruction to the Committee and I believe that I am only interpreting the wishes of the Commission. Do my hon. Friends really mean by the Instruction that they only want to require the Commission to

do what is reasonable and fairly practicable to hold the canal in its present condition and not to spend a great deal of money on it, which may to some extent prove to be useless expenditure—for instance, in the building of a new lock where it could keep a lock in some sort of condition, but about which it would be difficult to say, under the terms of the Instruction, that no further deterioration had taken place?
If my hon. Friends say that that is what they wish, it should be merely a fair and practical requirement and not what I may call a mandatory requirement that might put the Commission to a great deal of expense which, on the whole, would be unfair. If that is so, I will certainly ask the House to send the Instruction to the Committee in the knowledge that the Commission would have a fair chance of making its case and a fair chance of submitting to the wish of the Committee and of trying to do what we all want, which is to keep this canal in its present state, as far as is humanly possible.
I have to decide what is the future not only of this, but of a great many other canals which may possibly have no commercial future, but which may have an amenity future, or even be used for limited commercial purposes. If I have interpreted the desires of my hon. Friends correctly—

Mr. Hurd: I happen to represent part of the country through which the Kennet and Avon Canal passes. I, and, I think, my constituents, would be fully satisfied if this Instruction to the Committee is interpreted as a requirement that the capacity of the canal to perform its drainage functions be carried out fully and properly. I mentioned the difficulty of the position at Hungerford through one culvert of the canal being silted up. I think it essential that that kind of trouble should be put right.
I would ask, also, that where, with very modest expenditure, repairs to locks could be done—such as the putting in of a new mitre post, which would cost a few pounds and might be done with local help—they should be done, so as to allow a little pleasure craft traffic to pass during this summer.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a very reasonable requirement and exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I think that running


expenditure, so to speak, is not an improper thing to place on the Commission. But suddenly to place upon it the cost of the complete reconstruction of the whole concern would appear an unfair burden.

Sir R. Grimston: I agree with the interpretation of my right hon. Friend. May I ask that there will also be machinery to secure that in the event of a disagreement it would go to independent arbitration?

Mr. Watkinson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. May I conclude by recommending the House to accept in those terms that construction of the second Instruction to the Committee?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 14.

Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, That they shall make adequate provision in the Bill—

(i) to ensure that the British Transport Commission allows no further deterioration to take place in the condition of the Kennet waterways and appliances, as defined in the Bill, until such time as Parliament shall determine; and
(ii) to secure the enforcement of such provision.—[Sir R. Grimston.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed:

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.